Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Oh where, oh where has the American air base gone? Oh where or where can it be? With its 6,000 phantom troops and 32 million missing dollars, oh where, oh where can it be? Madam Speaker, let me explain. Corruption has struck again, and just like times in the past, it's at the taxpayers' expense. Government investigators recently uncovered the newest scam in contracting. This time it's a phantom air base in Iraq, purchased by the U.S. taxpayers at the tune of $32 million. Madam Speaker, here it is, or here it's supposed to be. This is a photograph of the location in Iraq where the air base is, or where it was supposed to be built. But you can see that there is nothing to see because it was never built. Last month the Inspector General at the Defense Department released a report about money spent to help train and equip Iraqi military and police forces. The contracting project in question was awarded to Ellis Environmental Group, a U.S. company based out of Florida, in 2006. The U.S. Air Force paid the company $32 million for this project, this air base in Iraq. The construction contract would have involved the creation of barracks and offices for 6,000 Iraqi troops in Ramadi, the capital of the Anbar province. But the project had to be abandoned before anything was ever built when the Iraqi Defense Ministry failed to obtain this desert land for the base. So what happened to the $32 million the Air Force doled out to Ellis Environmental? The alarming answer is no one knows. And the company won't say. An Air Force spokesman says the contractor set up a camp for construction workers and began design work for the headquarters before the project was halted. But nothing was ever built. All we know now is that none of the $32 million the U.S. paid out to these contractors was returned to U.S. taxpayers. The Air Force is set to begin an audit of the project, but no one knows how long that's going to take. The Inspector General report documents more abuses. And USA Today Matt Keller, reporter, said the findings show ``the military didn't keep adequate records of equipment for the Iraqis ranging from generators and garage trucks to thousands of guns and grenade launchers. Separately, the United States has launched a criminal investigation into allegations that weapons it bought for the Iraqi soldiers ended up in the hands of insurgent and terrorist groups.'' Madam Speaker, this ought not to be. In the meantime, Ellis Environmental Group has changed its name. If a crime has been committed, these outlaws responsible need to be held accountable. Madam Speaker, war profiteers that make money off of war by building ``phantom'' military bases like this one should be prosecuted. This type of conduct fits the definition of war crimes. Maybe we should build a real prison for war criminals out in this desert in the sands of Iraq to house thieves that steal American money. So, Madam Speaker, oh where, oh where has the American base gone? Oh where, oh where can it be? With its 6,000 phantom troops and 32 million missing dollars, it's where, oh where no one can see. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the fine work and outstanding public service of my friend, Lester Ray Wisegerber. In 2004, Lester Ray Wisegerber became president of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce. He drew upon his diverse background to lead and represent the city of Dayton. Being a true Texan and Dayton resident for 72 years, his happy spirit and love of the town made Lester Ray a natural promoter of the city. Celebrating their 57th wedding anniversary last December, Lester Ray and his wife Betty Jo are the proud parents of four children, twelve grandchildren and eight great grandchildren. During his lifetime Lester Ray has worn many hats, working for instance as a rancher, and a rice farmer. He helped form the Seaberg Rice Company and is also an inventor. His inventions include the ``Easy Start'', Dr. Hennessey's Dental Flosser, and a fuel saving motor. Lester Ray has a long career in public service. Throughout the years, he has assisted and been recognized by numerous boards and organizations. For two terms, he served on the Dayton City Council. He served on the board of the Liberty County Farm Bureau. He served on the Dayton ISD school board for fifteen years. His service to Dayton ISD has helped improve both the life and education for the children of our community. As a former bronco football player, Lester Ray's love for sports gave way to the organization of the Bronco Booster Club Oyster Supper. For twenty four years, Lester Ray served in the Dayton Volunteer Fire Department. The list of this model citizen's accomplishments will have lasting effects on our children and our community. Actively involved in local politics, Lester Ray currently serves as the chairman of the Liberty County Republican Party. During this time, he has successfully promoted candidates for numerous elected positions. His hard work and love for Liberty County has earned him enduring respect throughout the community. On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I commend this remarkable Texan for his exemplary service and dedication to the city of Dayton. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the border war with Mexico continues. On the Mexican side of the border, Mexican nationals hide on rocky hills and throw rocks at American border agents. These assaults have continued to increase and escalate to the point that the Border Patrol recently acted in self-defense and fired tear gas at the unruly mobs. You see, these are the same Mexican nationals that later will illegally sneak into America when the Border Patrol isn't watching. After the most recent tear gas episode, the Mexican Government sent a self-righteous statement to the United States that said, even though ``these incidents are a response to hostile acts against Border Patrol agents by Mexican citizens, the actions by U.S. authorities are unacceptable.'' The Mexican Government seems to arrogantly support its rock-throwing nationals but doesn't want Americans to defend themselves. Mexico needs to get its lawless house in order and control the disorderly mobs that lurk on the border. The United States should use every tool available to protect our borders from invaders, rock throwers, and drug smugglers. And if Mexico cries tears about it, too bad. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Berkeley, California, has fallen off the deep end, and it wasn't caused by an earthquake either. The city council passed a resolution telling the local United States Marine Corps recruiting station that it was ``not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.'' Mayor Tom Bates said, ``The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave.'' Shame on Mayor Bates. He has flippantly and pompously denounced those noble few--the proud--the chosen--the Marines that represent everything that is good and right about America. These defenders of democracy deserve better than Berkeley's arrogant disapproval. These deplorable anti-Marine city council members must still have a sixties peacenik, hippie mentality that world peace can occur by sitting around smoking dope and banging on the tambourine. Berkeley should lose all Federal funding for their smug denouncement of the Marine Corps. Patriotic Americans should not subsidize cities that tell the Marines to ``get out of town.'' And as for the Marines, we'll take them all in Texas. We'll have a parade, fly the flag, and sing the Marine Hymn. So Semper Fi. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the city of Houston recently lost a Texas Gentleman and great civic leader. Former Houston Mayor Louie Welch died on Sunday, Jan. 27, 2008 after a long battle with cancer. He was 89 years old. Mayor Welch's contributions to Houston government will impact generations of city residents that now enjoy a better quality of life and greater economic opportunity. Louie Welch was born on Dec. 9, 1918 in the west Texas town of Lockney. Welch was an industrious boy who performed many tasks to earn money such as sell magazines, deliver milk and sell popcorn for a nickel a bag. In high school, he participated in debate and was elected president of his senior class. These activities were an early sign of his life-long interest in politics. Welch attended Abilene Christian University and graduated in 1940 with a history degree. While in college, he met his future wife, Iola Faye Cure and they were married on Dec. 17, 1940. They later had five children. After Iola Faye died, Louie married Helen. After graduating from college, his political career began in 1949 as a Houston city councilman. He served four terms as council member. With a tough political resolve, he ran for Houston mayor four times before finally becoming successful. Welch served as mayor of Houston from 1964 to 1973. His mother's religious influence left a permanent impression with Welch who, in addition to graduating from a Christian university, was a member of Garden Oaks Church of Christ for more than 35 years and frequently quoted from the Bible throughout his life. I had the opportunity to serve on the Board of Trustees at Abilene Christian University with the Mayor. Mayor Welch will be remembered for a rich legacy of vital construction projects that he helped oversee to completion which improved city services and prepared for future growth in Houston. These projects included construction of Bush Intercontinental Airport, Lake Conroe and Lake Livingston reservoirs which provided much needed water supplies for Houston's rapidly growing residential and commercial areas. Welch's other projects involved closing down inefficient sewer treatment plants, starting the cleanup of the Houston Ship Channel and bayou beautification. His leadership abilities also extended into national positions with Welch serving as vice president of the National League of Cities from 1970 to 1973 and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors from 1972 to 1973. Mayor Welch was a man who loved Houston tremendously. He joked that he didn't tell his sons that they were born in that ``northern'' city of Dallas until they were much older to protect them from the horrible truth for as long as possible. He was known for his witty observations on Texas politics and himself. He once said, ``When I was elected mayor I spent the better part of my first term weeding out the political appointees I had inherited from my predecessor. Virtually all of my second term, I spent weeding out my own political appointees.'' Welch even served a brief stint as guest weatherman for the local TV channel ABC 13. When weatherman Ed Brandon gave the forecast for the chance of rain one day, Mayor Welch was hiding above him in the studio on a ladder and dumped a bucket of water on Brandon's head. He told the very surprised weatherman, ``You never get that right. Let's face it: it's always 50 percent. Either it's going to rain or it's not going to rain.'' Following his years as mayor, Welch went to work for the Houston Chamber of Commerce, which later became the Greater Houston Partnership, and served as president of the organization for 12 years. I met the Mayor when I was a teenager. I showed up at the Garden Oaks Church of Christ one Wednesday night seeking out a local girl. The Mayor cornered me and wanted to know who I was and my intentions. I was quite intimidated by the 5'6" Mayor, but after the interrogation, I was approved to speak to the girl--(but she still turned me down for a date). Years later, I went to see the Mayor, then President of the Houston Chamber, because I had decided to run as a Republican for State District Judge in Houston. Being a political nobody and novice I needed sound political advice from an expert. The Mayor told me no Republican had been elected to a state judgeship in Hous`ton since Reconstruction. So, he recommended instead that I run for the non-partisan position of City Council, because Houstonians preferred ``nobodies'' over Republicans. I did overcome the handicap of being a Republican and for years appreciated his wise political counsel when I served as a judge. When I taught an Adult Sunday School Class at Bammel Church of Christ, Louie and his wife Helen would always sit on the front row of the class. The Mayor would interrupt my lesson at some critical point and make a humorous comment about the lesson that would sidetrack our discussion. Louie Welch knew the Good Book as well as the Apostle Paul, but he was much funnier. We shall miss Louie Welch. His son Gary Welch recently told the Houston Chronicle, ``I would like for him to be remembered as a mayor who cared deeply about the city of Houston and each and every person who lived in the city of Houston.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Colombia, Afghanistan, and Iraq have something in common. These are six nations, among several others, where the State Department recommends that Americans don't travel. But today there was another advisory issued, but this one was not by the State Department but by the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Public Safety. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read just a portion of this into the Record. Here is what it says. Texas Department of Public Safety dated today: ``Due to the increased rising level of violence in Mexico--which is attributed to drug cartels, violent criminal organizations, and increased presence of military personnel in some Mexican border communities--it is recommended that persons be discouraged from traveling to Mexican border towns, particularly those that have recently been scenes of gang-related violent activity. These communities include Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, Reynosa, Rio Bravo, Miguel Aleman, and Ciudad Juarez.'' Mr. Speaker, you see, the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued an advisory for Americans: don't go to these border towns because of the violence. And the reason the violence has increased specifically has to do with what happened in Rio Bravo which is across the Rio Grande River from Texas. The Rio Bravo mayor last month was gunned down while leaving a restaurant, along with two other politicians. The Mexican Government sent in troops to help quell the violence. But 5 days ago, local police in several Mexican border towns, specifically Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Reynosa, were relieved of their duties by the federal Government because of their alleged links to drug cartels, specifically the gulf drug cartel. What that means, Mr. Speaker, now on the Mexican border, bordering Texas, there are 6,000 Mexican troops stationed there. They are stationed from Matamoros to Miguel Aleman. Now, Matamoros is the border town across from Brownsville, Texas. Brownsville is on the furthest eastern tip of Texas. Brownsville is a big community, and across the river is Matamoros. And Miguel Aleman is 100 miles upriver across the river from Roma, Texas. There is violence in these border towns. Many people don't understand what a border town is. A border town is a town on the American border and has another town very similar to it on the Mexican border. And both of these towns, being border towns, border each other separated only by the border between Mexico and the United States. The State Department has already issued a travel alert for Mexico because of the violence that occurs there. But now the State of Texas finds a need to warn all citizens, especially law enforcement officials, of the problems. Mr. Speaker, the open-border crowd denies this violence occurs on our southern front. I have been down to the Texas-Mexico border now 13 times, and I have talked to the local people who live there, and I have also talked to the chamber of commerce types who say, Oh, there is no problem here in our border towns. There is no violence or drugs. We don't have a problem with infiltration from drug cartels and criminals coming into our cities. Of course they say those things, in my opinion, because they want that open border for that travel back and forth between Mexico and the United States because of money, because of commerce, because of that greed that so many people have; and they deny the fact that the border needs to be secure. We live in denial sometimes that there is a border war that is existing. It is a violent border war. It is a border war between drug cartels and criminals, and many of those people don't just stay on the Mexican side. When Sheriff Rick Flores was here in Congress and testified before Congress, he is the sheriff in Webb County, Texas, he said we are naive to believe that the border problem only will be on the Mexican side. He is the sheriff in Laredo. Across the river is Nuevo Laredo. That is basically a ghost town now controlled by the drug cartels; and those criminals, they will come to the American side as well. Sigi Gonzales, the sheriff in Zapata County, he told me that the drug cartels and the criminals, they have better equipment, they have more equipment, they have better money, and they have more people involved in doing what they want to do than we have in protecting the dignity of the United States. And to illustrate how violent it is on the border, Mr. Speaker, I want to read you one more portion of this report: There currently exists a U.S. Department of State travel alert for Mexico. Fort Bliss officials announced Saturday that travel to Juarez has been declared off limits for U.S. military. In other words, Fort Bliss, the United States Army, they can go to Iraq, they can go to Afghanistan, but they can't go to Juarez right across the river because it is too dangerous. Mr. Speaker, there is a border war taking place on the southern border. All is not quiet on the southern border, and we need to understand that this is a tremendous problem and our government needs to get into action and protect Americans from this invasion. And that's just the way it is. Border Travel Advisory summary Due to the rising level of violence in Mexico--which is attributed to drug cartels, violent criminal organizations, and increased presence of military personnel in some Mexican border communities--it is recommended that persons be discouraged from traveling to Mexican border towns, particularly those that have recently been scenes of gang- related violent activity. These communities include Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, Reynosa, Rio Bravo, Miguel Aleman, and Ciudad Juarez. The increased levels of violence in recent weeks and potential for additional violence suggest that an advisory against traveling to these communities is warranted. details On November 30, 2007, gunmen opened fire on the former mayor of Rio Bravo--who was a two-term representative and one-time senator--and his entourage as they left a restaurant in Rio Bravo. The former mayor was killed along with two other politicians and two federal agents. The Los Zetas, an organized cell of the Gulf Cartel, had previously threatened the former mayor's life and attempted a prior assassination, prompting the government to assign bodyguards. In response to the assassination, the Mexican government immediately mobilized approximately 500 soldiers, federal police, and support personnel in order to conduct counterdrug operations in the state of Tamaulipas. The focus of the operation was on the cities of Matamoros, Rio Bravo, and Miguel Aleman, just south of Roma, Texas, and Reynosa, Mexico. On Monday, January 7, 2008, members of the Mexico Federal Preventive Police (PFP) were patrolling Colonia Cuauhtemoc in Rio Bravo when they observed a 2005 Chevrolet Suburban occupied by heavily armed men. The officers attempted a traffic stop that resulted in shots being fired at the officers from the Suburban. A gun battle ensued, and additional officers and a contingent of the Mexican army responded. Three gunmen were killed and ten others were arrested, including three U.S. citizens, one of whom was from Texas. On January 23, 2008, local police in the border cities of Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Reynosa, Mexico, were relieved of their duties as army troops disarmed the officers and searched for evidence that might show links to drug traffickers. Eleven men were arrested by federal police in Nuevo Laredo, including four police officers, who were said to be operatives for the Gulf Cartel. President Calderon has sent approximately 6,000 military troops and federal police to areas that extend from Matamoros--which is across the border from Brownsville, Texas--westward to Miguel Aleman, which is across the border from Roma, Texas. Mexican military and federal police personnel have also been sent to the city of Juarez. A similar operation was conducted last year in Tijuana when violence erupted there, with more than 3,500 soldiers and federal officers sent to the city. Over the past weekend, a total of five people were either shot or beaten to death in separate incidents in Juarez. This comes on the heels of approximately 30 persons in Juarez being murdered since the beginning of the year, including 17 law enforcement personnel, as well as the recent attempted assassination of a Chihuahua State Police Commander Fernando Lozano Sandoval. Commander Sandoval is currently hospitalized in El Paso's Thomason Hospital under tight security. An alleged ``hit list'' of Mexican law enforcement was also discovered near Chihuahua state offices over the weekend. There currently exists a U.S. Department of State travel alert for Mexico with a date to expire of April 15, 2008. Fort Bliss officials also announced Saturday that travel to Juarez has been declared off-limits for U.S. military personnel. In addition to the travel advisory, law enforcement officials should be aware of the possibility that violent criminals and cartel members may seek to enter Texas in an attempt to escape Mexican military and law enforcement operations. As some persons seek refuge in Texas, their enemies may plan to conduct raids or hits on them here. The most significant violent criminals in the region are members of the Gulf Cartel or their violent enforcers, Los Zetas. analyst's comments With the increased military and police presence in Mexican border towns, and the recent violence associated with shootouts between Mexican military and drug cartels, it is advised that Texas residents avoid traveling to Mexican border communities, particularly those that have recently been scenes of violent gang-related activity. In addition, there exists a possibility that Los Zetas and Cartel members may cross the border into Texas. Tactical operations, such as increased police patrols, should be initiated in high-profile and high-visibility areas--such as points of entry and between points of entry--to discourage cross-border incursions. If any contact is made with suspected Los Zetas or cartel members, an INT-7 form should be completed and forwarded to the Texas Intelligence Center. Law enforcement officials are encouraged to remain vigilant and report any suspicious incidents to the Texas Intelligence Center.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese attack on the Christian faith continues. For 60 days, the Chinese Government has held Shi Weiham, a Christian bookstore owner, in secret detention for praying. As China readies for the 2008 Summer Olympics, it is trying to convince critics that it embraces religious freedom. But China is secretly moving religious believers to the dark, damp, hidden hideaway of jail. China restricts all religious practice to state-sanctioned churches and certain places of worship. So Chinese don't dare pray or worship anywhere else, or off to jail they go. That is what happened to Shi Weiham. China's religious tolerance is a public relations campaign draped in hypocrisy. China arrests thousands of Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists each year. As religion is being attacked across atheistic Communist China, we should recall Winston Churchill's words about communism: ``A communist is like a crocodile, when it opens its mouth, you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up.'' The Chinese crocodile is devouring religious freedom among its people. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the gloom, doom, and depressed say the economy is in trouble. The naysayer's solution is a big government bailout. Since Uncle Sam has apparently spent the money brought in by income taxpayers, he will just borrow $150 billion and give it away to Americans, many of whom don't even pay income tax. The idea is that Americans will rush out and spend the free money and that will allegedly help the economy. But the last time the Feds gave away money, 75 percent of the recipients paid off personal debt rather than go shopping at the mall. And where is Uncle Sam going to borrow $150 billion? Probably from Communist China, who already owns much of our debt. You know, the country that sells toys to America that contain lead. How does borrowing billions with interest expecting our kids to pay off our debt make us better off? The big spending gimmick has all of the earmarks of vote pandering. No individual or country can spend money it doesn't have and then blissfully claim economic victory. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, January 20, 2008, my legislative assistant, Nicole Schouten, married Jeffrey Hunt in San Diego, California. Nicole met Jeff at Westmont College in the bookstore on campus. She was a store clerk and he was looking for an excuse to get to know Nicole so he frequently stopped in for a soda. Although they were both intrigued with each other the timing for their relationship wasn't right and they parted ways. Six years later, Jeff and Nicole reconnected in Washington, DC, while working on Capitol Hill. Nicole and Jeff perfectly compliment each other not only in their political views, but in their desire to make their community and world a better place. Jeff devotes his time and talents to serving the people of Vienna Presbyterian Church and the youth of Arlington, Virginia as a Young Life leader. In addition to her busy job and law school obligations, Nicole volunteers with the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the Big Sister/Little Sister program. In August 2007 Jeff surprised Nicole with a week long trip to Holland. They spent 4 days exploring Amsterdam and the surrounding countryside, giving Nicole an opportunity to connect to her Dutch heritage. On August 11, 2007, in the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam's first parish, Jeff asked for Nicole's hand in marriage. Nicole, of course, accepted with enthusiasm. I send Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Hunt best wishes for a lifetime of happiness and offer them the inspiring words of Wilfred Arlan Peterson's poem, The Art of a Good Marriage, as a guide in their new life together. Happiness in marriage is not something that just happens. A good marriage must be created. In marriage the little things are the big things. It is never being too old to hold hands. It is remembering to say ``I love you'' at least once a day. It is never going to sleep angry. It is at no time taking the other for granted; the courtship should not end with the honeymoon, it should continue through the years. It is having a mutual sense of values and common objectives. It is standing together facing the world. It is forming a circle of love that gathers the whole family. It is doing things for each other, not in the attitude of duty or sacrifice, but in the spirit of joy. It is speaking words of appreciation and demonstrating gratitude in thoughtful ways. It is not looking for perfection in each other. It is cultivating flexibility, patience, understanding and a sense of humor. It is having the capacity to forgive and forget. It is giving each other an atmosphere in which each can grow old. It is a common search for the good and the beautiful. It is establishing a relationship in which the independence is equal, dependence is mutual and the obligation is reciprocal. It is not only marrying the right partner, it is being the right partner. Congratulations Nicole and Jeff. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Malaysian Government recently seized Christian children's books written in English because they contained illustrations of Bible prophets Moses and Abraham, an alleged violation of Islamic Shariah law. The Malaysian Government's publications and ``Religious Enforcement Police'' found that the images of Bible characters in the Christian books offended the sensitivities of Muslims and must be banished. Malaysian Prime Minister Badawi indicated other religions must understand that Islam is the true religion for Malaysia. The government's ``midnight raid'' on these books infringes on the basic human right of religious freedom, a right which ironically is protected in the Malaysian constitution, but nonexistent under Islamic Shariah law. This is yet another example of the problems with a State religion. Ghandi once said, ``If we are to respect others' religions as we would have them respect ours, a study of the world's religions is a sacred duty.'' The Malaysian government expects all religions to be tolerant of the Islamic religion, but hypocritically is intolerant of the Christian faith. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I come to you today to discuss what is going on internationally with our country. You know, this country is at war in Iraq. We have been for a number of years. This country is at war in Afghanistan, and we have been for a number of years. While the news from the front is encouraging, both of those wars are not over with yet. And it is interesting to me that even though we are sending our troops, our young men and women, the finest America has to offer, halfway around the globe to protect the dignity of other countries, it concerns me that we fail to protect the security of our own Nation on the southern border of the United States. Because, Madam Speaker, there is a border war going on in the United States on our southern border. Unfortunately, too many people, especially here in Washington, DC are blissfully ignorant of what is taking place on the southern border. You see we have two international borders. We have one with Mexico and we have one with Canada. The number one duty of government is to protect the people, to protect America from all incursions, all invasions. So we send our troops halfway around the world to protect the interest of the United States in Iraq, protect the interest of the United States in Afghanistan, and I agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we also need to be concerned about what is taking place closer to our homeland, and that is the border wars that are taking place. Why I say that is I have been down, while I have been in Congress these 3\1/2\ years, I have been down to the Texas-Mexico border now 13 times. I have also been to the border between California and Mexico. Madam Speaker, each time I go to the border I see more evidence that we are not winning the border war, that it is more difficult, it is harder on our troops down there, the sheriffs, the border agents. It is harder on the people who live on the border between the United States and Mexico. Many ranchers and people who live along the Rio Grande River on the American side have bars on their windows because they are afraid of people who come across from the southern part of the United States committing crimes. Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear I am not talking about everyone that comes to the United States is here to commit a crime. I am not saying that. I am saying when we fail to enforce the rule of law, that being you don't come to America without permission, that we get everybody. We get the good, we get the bad, and we get the ugly. Right now, Madam Speaker, we are getting a lot of bad and we are getting a lot of ugly. Let me give one example of those people who come in and flaunt the law of the United States that you don't come here without permission. I have here a night shot taken, and I am not sure that it can be seen, but I will hold it up anyway. This top photograph is a night scene of the bottom photograph. This is a photograph on the bottom of the Rio Grande River near Laredo, Texas. Across the river is Mexico. This is the nighttime version of that. What we see here is a raft with several individuals coming to America without permission. They are all dressed in black uniforms. You notice the guy in the front has an AK-47. That is an automatic weapon made in China. You also see, Madam Speaker, that behind each of these individuals coming in the raft are duffle bags. In those duffle bags are presumably drugs, narcotics, cocaine or heroin or both. These individuals are foreign nationals. What happened was these individuals were Guatemalan soldiers trained in the United States. Once they went back home, they started working for the drug cartels that paid them a whole lot more money than being Guatemalan soldiers. They switched sides, and now they smuggle drugs into the United States on behalf of the drug cartels. The individuals, you know, are the bad, and they are the ugly. The reason is the border is not secure. If the border was secure, these outlaws wouldn't be coming over here without permission. That is just one example of what is taking place on the southern border of the United States. Madam Speaker, there are three, some argue four major drug cartels in Mexico that bring that cancer into the United States and sell it. Right now those drug cartels work with the coyotes. We call those people ``coyotes'' because they, for money, smuggle people into the United States. And the drug cartels and the coyotes now work together smuggling drugs and people sometimes in the same load. In other words, when our Border Patrol stops a vehicle sneaking into the United States, they will find not only illegals, but they will find drugs as well because it is a highly lucrative business to do both of those things, smuggle in the name of that filthy lucre; we call it money. I would like to talk this evening about some basic things that are taking place on the border, that silent forgotten border war that is taking place in America. There are several places in the United States that border Mexico and border Canada that we call legal ports of entry. Those legal ports of entry are where people come to the United States the right way, the legal way, the way they are supposed to come into the United States. Now if you are from Mexico or Canada or the Caribbean islands, you get a break in coming to the United States that other foreign nationals don't have. If you are from Brazil or Chile or Guatemala or Germany, the only way you come to the United States legally is with a passport. We have all seen passports. That is the universal, worldwide document of legal entry into another country. But if you are from Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean island, you can come in using almost any type of document. There are now about 8,000 different documents that those people from those countries can use to get into the United States, including everything from a baptismal certificate to some type of other document like a passport. So when these people come to the border, let's say Laredo, and they are lined up to come into the United States, the border agent that is standing on the international border letting people in sometimes doesn't even check the documents. How do you know that? Because I saw it when I was down there. They look into the car, they make sure that the people or they ask a few questions, and they let those people come into the United States. Sometimes they look at paperwork. Sometimes they don't. But they come into the United States presumably lawfully. But the problem is, Madam Speaker, we do not record who comes into America. Assume everybody in this vehicle is coming into the United States the right way. They have legal documents. They have a visa to come in. The United States Government doesn't record who those people are. We just let them pass on through. We have been doing that for years. So the port of entry is an area where we first need to beef up security because if the person in that vehicle or a pedestrian walking across the border can convince a border agent that they can lawfully come into the country, they are waved on by in many cases; not in every case, but in many cases. When I was in Laredo, Texas, at the lawful port of entry, the border agents there, the agents at the border, were very concerned about talking to me in private because, you see, their supervisor followed me around while I was there and they didn't want to talk to me with that person observing. But one of those persons at the legal port of entry told me something very interesting. He told me that we have been told that we are a port of entry, not a port of denial; and when in doubt, we let them in because that is the policy we have been given. It looked to me like that was the policy. So, Madam Speaker, the first thing we do is the basics: We secure the legal ports of entry, and not by allowing one of 8,000 documents to come into the United States, but we need to follow the 9/11 Commission that recommended that anybody entering America should have a passport. But yet here we are in 2008, almost 6\1/2\ years since 9/11, and yet we still don't use that universal document of a passport to require entry into this country. My question is: Why not? And the reason is because of political pressure, political agendas by people here in the United States and abroad to prevent that from happening. So let's assume that people have to use a passport and that passport that we have now has all types of electronic coding barcodes in it. And when those people come across in that vehicle, rather than just look in the car or examine a few documents that may or may not be forgeries, everybody's passport could be taken, you scan it across the scanner, the border agent at the border automatically sees on the screen whether anybody has a criminal record, gets their real name, we record who comes into the United States, and therefore we have a permanent record of those individuals. And he then returns the passport. That is the simplest, the most secure way to ensure that people are not fraudulently walking through the ports of entry and trying to get into the United States. Madam Speaker, if I send a package somewhere in the world, let's say I send it to Russia and I send it by Federal Express, like in the movie with Tom Hanks, and it goes to Russia, well, you can actually use on the Internet, I can since I am sending the package, whether it's UPS or Federal Express, I can track where my package is going. I can see where it is going because every time it makes a stop, it is recorded. It is tracked all the way to Russia, and I can find out when it gets there. Now if we are smart enough to devise a system like that to track packages, why don't we track people who come into the United States when they have permission to come here? I don't know. We just don't do it. So, Madam Speaker, I recommend that we follow the 9/11 Commission and require every person who enters the United States, or leaves the United States, to have a passport. When I say leave it, when those individuals come here lawfully, we now know that 50 percent, almost 60 percent of people legally coming to the United States, they never go home. They just stay. The reason they stay is because who would want to leave America? More importantly, they know that the odds of them being tracked down, so to speak, and told to go home are almost none. I will get to that in a minute. So you have a passport. Let's say this person is a guest worker. We hear we need more guest workers and we don't have guest workers. Madam Speaker, we bring in 1.2 million guest workers a year to work in this country. So we have guest workers. Whether we need more or not is another issue, but we do have guest workers. But when a guest worker comes in, make them have the passport and then make them have a bona fide visa that we can also stand. Right now when an individual shows up for a job the way the employer checks the legality of an individual is calling on the telephone a 1-800 number to the Social Security Administration to make sure that this guy has a Social Security number. That is ridiculous. Social Security numbers were never meant to be an identification system. Social Security was set up so some of us, hopefully some of us, will be able some day to get some type of retirement. It has nothing to do with security and identification of people coming into the country. So we shouldn't use that system. The employer should have the bona fide visa hard copy and able to keep it until that 6 or 8 months is over for that guest worker, and then that person needs to go back home. They have it recorded who the legal immigrant is working for. That is the fairest way, the simplest way, but we don't do that. Now the Federal Government is talking about using another type of identification for people coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico. Why do we do that? Why don't we just require everybody to have a passport? It makes no sense to me. Madam Speaker, the second problem we have is that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Administration, good folks, but there's not enough of them. They're understaffed and they're underfunded. They enforce the law once the immigrant, legal immigrant has come into the United States past the 25-mile rule. What I'm saying is this: On the border of Canada and the United States, Mexico and the United States, Border Patrol patrols the first 25 miles trying to capture people who are coming here illegally. After that 25 miles, ICE, as it's called, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, patrols the rest of America trying to capture people that came through the net, broke through the net. And they are enforcing the immigration laws. And there's not enough of them because there's way too many immigrants that have been here for years and have never been confronted about being in the United States illegally, or legally, for that matter, if they're an overstay. So the interior enforcement needs to be restructured. We need to have more enforcement officers enforcing the rule of law, because that is important for this country. Madam Speaker, of course the people on the other side of the border that make money off of importation of drugs and people, they know all the rules and they know what's going on over here. So what happens is when, let's say, a person contracts with a coyote to come into the United States, they pay several hundred, several thousand dollars to this coyote and the coyote brings them in 30 miles to the United States. The contract is to get them past the Border Patrol. Once you're by the Border Patrol, we'll let you out of the vehicle, you pay us money and you're home free; nobody'll ever catch you. So the other side understands the rules and understands what's happening. So ICE, good folks, I know a lot of them, they just need more help in interior enforcement of the United States. Madam Speaker, I want to mention a little heresy now, because, you see, the reason people come to the United States, many of them, is to work. Some of them come legally, but a lot of them come illegally to work. And it is the law, and has been for years, that if a business knowingly hires a person illegally in the country, then that business can be prosecuted. Now, we don't read about, in the papers, too much about businesses being prosecuted for hiring illegals. Of the thousands and thousands and thousands of businesses in the United States, you know there are several that are hiring illegals, and they know it. But not very often does one of them make the newspaper. We read about everything else, but we don't hear about that. Why not? Because maybe they aren't being prosecuted. So, if the business owner knowingly hires an illegal, then that business owner needs to be prosecuted. And when illegals that are working here don't have the opportunity to work, they'll go back where they came from. They will, because many of them are working here on the cash economy, which means that they are being paid plantation wages, in some cases, not all cases. They're being paid in cash. The employer's dealing in cash because, you see, then nobody pays taxes. Nobody pays the Social Security. Nobody pays to health care, including the business owner. And they're able, that way, to drive the economy down. You know, we hear this about, Oh, they help the economy. That is a farce, and I'll talk about that in a minute. I'll give you an example of how that works, Madam Speaker. I represent southeast Texas. I border Louisiana and northern Houston, and I have a business owner in one of my towns that legally hires legal immigrants to work in his carpet business. And he verifies, he goes through all the procedure to make sure that the dozen or so folks working in his carpet business are legally in the country as guest workers. Good for him. But there's a guy down the street that's also in the carpet business, carpet laying business, tough work, and that person hires illegals. And he pays his illegals less money. And because he pays them less money, he can do the same job cheaper. And so what he's doing is forcing the business owner who does the right thing, hiring foreigners on a legal basis who come to the United States, he's forced him out of business. And the same is true of businesses that hire Americans, because the cheap plantation labor that is being furnished by people who are unscrupulous businessmen is driving the economy down. But they're making money out of it, and so they need to be prosecuted. I know that's heresy, but we need to go after them and prosecute them because it's been the law for a long time. Madam Speaker, we hear about, well, we need illegals in the country to help the economy. If our economy is based upon illegal workers, then there's something wrong with our economy. But be that as it may, we hear that, well, illegals help the economy. And then we hear on the other extreme, no, they don't. They're a tremendous drain on our economy. What is the truth? Well, a study was done by the Heritage Foundation, and they discovered that a head of household that's illegally in the country and has a household contributes in taxes approximately, or to the system, about $10,000 a year. But they also found that that head of household with illegals takes from the system, the government, the Federal Government, State government, local government, about $30,000 a year in benefits, whether it's health care, education, welfare, it takes about 30,000. So yes, they do contribute some to the tax base, but they take far more than they contribute to our economy. And so we need to understand that truism. Madam Speaker, we also have the problem of cities in the United States that flaunt the fact that they are sanctuary cities. What a sanctuary city is is a city, whether negligently or on purpose, allows illegals to live in the city and makes sure that they're never prosecuted. Cities that are sanctuary cities, that harbor illegals, regardless of who those illegals are, whether they're overstays or anybody else, are in violation of Federal law. Those sanctuary cities, in my opinion, should lose Federal aid because the Federal Government, the taxpayers of the United States should not be funding and sending money to cities that allow illegals to stay there without the fear of being prosecuted or deported or sent back home. And it's important that the rule of law be enforced. But we won't go after sanctuary cities as a body. We haven't done that yet. We need to have the will to be able to do that. If cities want to have those sanctuary policies in their homes or in their States, then they shouldn't receive taxpayer money. Also, we should be able to use local law enforcement agents, not to do the job of ICE, but to help ICE. And there's a program Congress established. It's called the 287(g) program. What that means is this: that there is money available for training and for funding of local law enforcement agents, that when they encounter an illegal that has committed maybe a crime and that person is arrested for drunk driving, let's say, that they can do an immigration background check and see whether that person's legally in the United States or not and then hold them for ICE to be deported later. They can work in cooperation with ICE, not go out and arrest folks at work sites, but people that come into their possession because they've committed some other crime. Because, you see, sanctuary cities in many cases won't allow the police officers to even ask the person they arrested, Where are you from? Can't even get that basic identification. So the 287(g) program is a good program. It would allow local law enforcement agencies to help in the cause of protecting the dignity of the United States, when necessary, after they're trained and trained by ICE to, when they arrest someone, if that person's illegally in the country, they can pass that information on to ICE as well. Madam Speaker, I've talked a lot about those people who come here legally. I mentioned a little bit about people who've come here illegally, and I think we need to separate the two and make sure that we understand that there is a difference between those who come the right way and those who come the wrong way. I've been to those immigration ceremonies where people wanted to not just come here to work but wanted to come here to be Americans, stood there, Federal judge, gave them the oath to be a citizen of the United States, how their families were there, how they're teary eyed and proud of the fact that they are now Americans. Wonderful, wonderful events for those people who come here the right way, especially those who want to be citizens. And we've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who legally came to the United States but they're not American citizens. And they've gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and are fighting those wars over there in the hope that that will help them become citizens later, and it will help them become citizens if they fight for the United States, and they're not even citizens. Wonderful, wonderful people, those citizens who have become naturalized. But we have a problem with those folks who are not coming here the right way. And everyone that comes here illegally has always got a reason why they won't do it the right way. But I'd like to move on, Madam Speaker, and mention a problem that we have currently with the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol, Madam Speaker, are those wonderful men and women that patrol the border, northern border, the southern border, great people. And I have met so many of them, and they do the best that we will let them do in enforcing the border. But because Homeland Security, in my opinion, has drawn up the rules of engagement, they tie the hands of the Border Patrol on what they can do to enforce the rule of law. Now, we've got to remember, that the bad guys that are coming into the United States, especially drug dealers, coyotes, they know what the Border Patrol policies are and they flaunt them to their benefit. And so what happens is, in many cases, our Federal Government, when the Border Patrol is down there fighting for the dignity of the United States trying to prevent, let's say, drug dealers from coming into the country, they get in a confrontation with a drug dealer, our government doesn't back them. The best example, of course, is Ramos and Compean, two border agents who now have spent a year in Federal custody. They got 11- and 12-year sentences because they had a confrontation with a drug dealer down on the Texas-Mexico border at the town of Fabens, Texas, and had a confrontation with him. They shot him. They didn't know they'd shot him. He disappears into Mexico. They believe that he had a weapon. The United States Federal Government finds the drug dealer bringing in $750,000 worth of drugs into our country, finds him, says to him, Oh, we're going to give you immunity. We're not going to prosecute you for being a drug smuggler into the United States. All you've got to do is come back to America and testify against the two border agents on a civil rights violation because, you see, they shot at you. They actually hit you, and so we want to prosecute them, says our Federal Government. And our Federal Government spent thousands and thousands of dollars prosecuting those two border agents, and they were convicted. They were sent off to prison. But what the jury in that trial didn't know was when this star witness, the backroom deal witness that the Federal Government made a deal with, you know, made a deal with the devil, to testify against these two border agents, while he's waiting to testify, he slips back into Mexico and brings another load of drugs into the United States, and the jury never heard about that second encounter. Now, Madam Speaker, if you're a juror in a case, and I used to be a judge, and, you know, I never thought using these kind of witnesses helped to find the truth in a case. And this is a perfect example. If you were a juror in the case and the whole Federal Government's case is based upon the testimony of a drug dealer saying that he didn't have a weapon and that these two border agents shot at him anyway, wouldn't you want to know that while he's waiting around to testify he's bringing more drugs into the United States, flaunting the immunity agreement that our government gave him? Sure, you'd want to know and then judge his credibility. Well, it turns out that was kept from the jury by the prosecutors. That case is on appeal. The fifth circuit heard it last year, and hopefully they'll reverse the case and order a new trial and let the next jury hear the whole truth. But you see, it's incidents like that which tells the Border Patrol agents don't get in a confrontation down there on the Texas-Mexico border, because if you do, our government won't back you; they're going to back the bad guy, the drug dealer. Another example, David Sipe, another Border Patrol agent. Several years ago, I think it was the year 2000, almost the same situation. He gets in a fight with a coyote, human smuggler, bringing people into the United States in the Rio Grande riverbed. And he has a fight with this coyote and he wins the fight. You know, we'd think we'd want our border agents to win the fight, but yet he's prosecuted for violating the civil rights of the human smuggler, and he's tried and he's convicted. And what we learn in that case was the prosecution hid evidence in this case as well. The U.S. Attorney's Office hid evidence in that case as well about the fact of all the advantages and deals they gave to the coyote if he testified. See, the jury didn't know about all the things that he was given, about the $80,000 he was given. Now, he bought a ranch down in Mexico with that $80,000 of U.S. money. About the cell phones, about the green cards coming back and forth. And so the Federal judge found out that the U.S. Attorney's Office hid that information from the jury, ordered a new trial. The second trial the jury heard all the truth. The jury found David Sipe not guilty. He's the second one. More recently, Gilmer Hernandez, now get this one. It's almost as bizarre as the other two. Gilmer Hernandez is a deputy sheriff down in Rock Springs, Texas, not a very big place, and a vehicle is coming through at night, lights off, runs the stop sign. Gilmer Hernandez is on patrol by himself. You see, we don't have the money to have two deputies in a car. He stops the vehicle. As he's approaching the vehicle, the driver turns the vehicle around, tries to run over Deputy Hernandez. Deputy Hernandez pulls out his pistol, perfect great shot. He starts shooting at the vehicle, the tires, just like in the movies. He's shooting at the tires, and he knocks out two of the tires as the vehicle goes by. But what happened was, one of those bullets ricocheted on one of the people in the vehicle. There were nine illegals, plus the driver which I assume was the coyote, and they take off running. Deputy Hernandez was prosecuted for a civil rights violation because the U.S. Attorney's office said he shouldn't have fired his gun at the vehicle as it went by. He protected himself in self-defense, in my opinion. Deputy Hernandez just now got out of Federal penitentiary, and he's back home in Rock Springs, Texas. It's cases like that which tell the border agents, be careful, don't get in a confrontation because if you do your government's not going to back you. Now, I give you those three examples, Madam Speaker, because of the most recent example, the tragic example of Luis Aguilar. Luis Aguilar was a border patrol agent from El Paso, Texas, on duty in Tucson, Arizona, last week. Two vehicles speed across the United States border with Mexico, presumably drug dealers, come into the United States, border patrol sees them, tries to apprehend them by blocking their path, they turn around, they start heading back to Mexico. Luis Aguilar, after getting permission with his supervisors, throws out what are called spikes, tire spikes, in front of one of the vehicles. The vehicle runs over this, tires blow out, and you're able to capture the bad guys. So he throws the spikes out in front of a Humvee, apparently stolen in the United States. You see, drug dealers are using real fancy vehicles stolen in the United States in many cases, and so he throws the spikes out but the Humvee doesn't stop. He heads for Border Patrol Agent Aguilar and, at a speed of 55 miles an hour, hits Border Agent Aguilar and killed him and then disappeared back into Mexico, that being the Humvee. He was 32, married, had two kids. But you see if he would have done what Deputy Hernandez did and pulled out his gun and tried to shoot out the tires, you know, where would our Federal Government be? We don't know, but we do know that Border Agent Aguilar was killed in the line of duty protecting the dignity of the border, and I say that to say this, Madam Speaker. Here's a chart. It's pretty simple. Assaults on border agents in 2005, there were 384. That's about one a day. 2006, doubled, 750, two a day. And last year in 2007, 987 assaults on border agents, three a day. That's what's happening to our border agents. And have you read about any of this in our American press, about the assaults that are taking place against our border agents who are protecting the war zone down there on the Texas-Mexico border? You don't hear much about it, but you sure hear about it when some drug dealer gets shot by a border patrol agent. That ought not to be. So, Madam Speaker, that's part of the problem is that we don't give the border patrol the right rules of engagement. We need to support them. We need to make the rules of engaging, especially drug dealers and coyotes different, so that they know our government supports them and act within the law to make sure they're able to stop those people who illegally come into the United States. Madam Speaker, one of the many places I've been is Hudspeth County. I'm sure most Americans never heard of that except folks down there in Hudspeth County. This is a drawing of it. El Paso County is to the West, and then there's Hudspeth County right here. It's a county about the size of Delaware. It has 12 deputy sheriffs patrolling this whole county the size of Delaware, and it's a great place for drug dealers to sneak into the United States and human coyotes because they're only 20 miles from Interstate 10. There have been reports that the Mexican military has actually helped drug dealers smuggle drugs into the United States. You don't hear much about that in the national media. But I want to tell you specifically about one incident I saw when the sheriff of Hudspeth County took me down to the Rio Grande River. We're driving down to the Rio Grande River on a dirt road. The river's to our south, and we come upon this. This is a bridge. It's a foot bridge. You don't drive back and forth across it, and it's out in the middle of no place, and there are three of these that connect Mexico to Hudspeth County, Texas, and of course, that bridge serves one purpose. It allows people to come into America without permission. And I was just stunned to see this and the other bridges, and they've apparently been there for a long time. I don't know why we just don't tear it down, you know. Are we going to offend somebody if we tear this bridge down? At least go halfway. Half of it's ours, but it's things like this that make the work of our border patrol so difficult when we have these absurd bridges down in at least parts of Texas that border the United States and Mexico and allow people to come across. Let me mention some other problems that we have. When Vicente Fox, and I call him Generalissimo Fox, was President of Mexico, he instigated a plan that would help illegals, not legals, come to the United States. What happened is the Mexican government produced comic book-types of pamphlets that were given to the migrants that were coming into the United States. Here are a few pages from the Guide for the Mexican Migrant. That's what it says on the outside of this pamphlet. And here you see what to do, shows you where to cross, what to do when you're confronted by a border patrol, what to say and not to say. But anyway, it's all helping migrants come into the United States illegally, including giving them maps on where they can go and the best places to cross. So I doubt, in my opinion, if we're getting the right kind of cooperation from the Mexican government. The Mexican economic policy seems to be go to America and send your money back to Mexico because that's what's happening. You know, people that are working in the United States from Mexico, send about $20 billion a year, that's billion with a B, back to Mexico. Other countries in Central America and South America, it's about $10 billion. It is about $30 billion a year of American economic stimulus is going to Mexico and to other countries in the Americas. So that is the apparently economic plan of Mexico. I don't understand why Mexico, with all of its natural resources, doesn't develop those rather than expecting individuals to come to the United States and send their money back home. You know, also speaking about Mexico, Mexico every once in a while kind of takes the position that we're being too hard on protecting our borders, but yet that's the same government that protects its southern border from other Central American countries where those illegals who want to come into Mexico, either to stay and work or come into the United States. Somewhat hypocritical to me, in my opinion. We have gone so far that in this country if you are illegally in the country you can get what is called a Mexican matricula card. What is that? That is a document that is produced by Mexico as identification for Mexican nationals that are illegally in the United States. Now, somebody sent me one of these. Here is one. It's obviously not authentic even though it looks like it was from the consulate's office in Indianapolis. That's my photograph. Somebody took it off the Internet and just put my photograph on it and just made a Mexican matricula card. Now that's what Mexican nationals, especially illegals, use to do banking, credit cards, to set up any type of financial transaction. They use these matricula cards. So we give illegals in this country identification cards from their home country. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The next thing I'd like to mention is that in many cases when people are actually captured by the border patrol they're not immediately sent back where they came from, whether it's from Mexico or from China or wherever. Because of the overwhelming numbers, we don't have the facilities to detain individuals. So, if you are a Mexican national, you're usually sent back home. That doesn't prevent you from coming right back across the river the same way you got here. But they're sent back, and I'm talking about Mexican nationals that are illegally in the country. They have to come back and forth and be caught numerous times before our government finally says now we're going to prosecute you for criminally entering the United States. Most of the time they're just sent back home. If you are not a Mexican national, what happens is because we don't have places to detain people that are captured by border patrol, sheriff's department, whoever, and then they are released on their word to come back to court for their deportation hearing. I probably need to repeat that again because I want to make sure that it is clear. So if you're not from Mexico but you're from some other place and you illegally come into the United States and you are captured, you're taken before an immigration judge, and on your oath and word you promise to appear in 6 months for your deportation hearing, and you are given a piece of paper, a get-out-of-jail-free card, which allows you to roam around for 6 months before you have to show back up because the courts are overwhelmed. Did you know something, Madam Speaker? Most of those people never show back up for their deportation hearing. They just stay in the United States, and we hear from Homeland Security that that policy has ended. I'm not so sure that it is, because when I go down to the border, and I talk to the people, the boots on the ground, they say, no, we are still doing that in many places. We let them go because we don't have places to detain them. When I was down on the Texas-Mexico border in one episode, we were driving down, middle of the night, 2 o'clock in the morning. Those Texas sheriffs are hard to keep up with. They stay up all the time, but anyway, we're driving down a road near the border and we see two people waiving at us. The sheriff stopped, found out these two people were from, I believe it was Costa Rica, and they wanted to be arrested so they could get their get-out-of-jail-free card so they could go on about their way. Interesting. They know the rules and what we don't do in this country to enforce our law in other countries. So it makes it very difficult to do what is necessary to enforce the rule of law. Madam Speaker, we have this problem. We have individuals, legal and illegal, from foreign countries come into the United States and they commit felonies. I'm talking about serious crimes, in violation of the Federal law. They are caught. They are captured, they are tried, they are convicted, and they're sent to prison. While they're in prison, our system works very well. ICE files deportation proceedings. They take place. An immigration judge orders the person deported as soon as they get out of the penitentiary. But what happens is when they finish their sentence, their home country won't take them back. They don't want them. They're criminals, and so because of our law, we can't indefinitely keep the person in custody. They've already served out their sentence for violating American law for a felony like robbery. So they're released within 6 months, as it should be. The Supreme Court has said that. I agree with that rule. We can't detain them, but their country won't take them back. Now, there are nine main countries that do that, and it may not surprise us that the number one culprit is that country that makes, you know, toys with lead in it and sends it to the United States, China. China doesn't take them back. They use all kinds of diplomatic excuses why they don't take them, but the bottom line is they don't take them back. Vietnam is another one that doesn't take them back. India. There's a total of eight countries that won't take them back. Now, it would seem to me if a country won't take back their lawfully deported felons, that country shouldn't get legal visas for other citizens to legally come here. It seems like that ought to be the law: You won't take back your deported ones, your citizens can't come here legally. That's what the law ought to be. Well, Madam Speaker, that is the law. However, the State Department chooses not to do that, especially with China, and I have the letter that they sent me. They choose not to do that with China because of the ongoing trade negotiations with the Chinese Government. Madam Speaker, if a person commits a felony in this country and they're ordered deported to go back home, they ought to go back home. If that country doesn't take them, they ought to lose the right to have legal visas in this country, and they ought to lose foreign aid if we give foreign aid to those countries; otherwise, we will have a continuing number of these felons running loose in America. How many are we talking about? My understanding is that right now it's 165,000 people lawfully deported for committing felonies and haven't been taken back home by their home country. It's amazing what we don't do in this country. We also have the problem, of course, in the area of how much it costs. And I'm going to try to go through these as fast as I can, Madam Speaker. Before I get to the costs, I want to talk about this issue of birthright citizenship. Most Americans, if you ask them the question, if you're born in the United States, are you a citizen, 100 percent of them are going to say, sure, you're a citizen if you're born here. But is that the law? And I'll read where this comes from. And when in doubt, we probably ought to just look at the Constitution. And I know most Members of the House on both sides carry a pocket Constitution like this, as I do, in their pockets. I want to read to you the 14th amendment, just portions of it. Section 1, 14th amendment of the United States: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'' That phrase that we don't ever talk about is ``all persons that are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' In other words, you've got to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you're born here. And people who sneak into the country with the whole premise of having a child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That would be my argument as a former prosecutor and as a judge, looking at it from a constitutional point of view. Just because you're born here doesn't make you a citizen under the Constitution. But it's our policy in this country to allow you to be a citizen. We just accept that. But that's not what the Constitution says. So, maybe in the interest of America we ought to revisit that, especially those people and those cases that fraudulently enter the country on the premise to have a child born here. Once that child is born here, then the child, because we say that child is an American citizen, then we don't deport the child, but we let the mother stay and then we allow the whole extended family to come over here and stay into the country. And this is happening at an epidemic proportion in the United States. It seems to me that we need a case before the Supreme Court and let them decide down the street whether or not, just because you're born here, does that make you a citizen? I would argue it doesn't because they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the country when they fraudulently came in here. They're subject to the jurisdiction of the country that they came from. Also, we have a tremendous cost in the area of education, Madam Speaker. Last year, Texas spent $4 billion educating people illegally in the United States. We talk about education costs. We've talked about it. We're going to talk about it some more. We don't hear too much talk about the people that are in the system that are here illegally in the country. Nationwide, it's about $30 billion a year. And it's unfortunate that we won't deal with the reality of it. We educate everybody in the country. All you've got to do is just show up and you're educated at somebody else's expense. Now, I don't think other countries do that. Let's say, Madam Speaker, that I went to France, and I snuck into France and I take my four kids with me. And I get into France and I tell the Education Minister of France, Educate me. Educate my kids. Educate them in English because none of us speak French. What do you think would happen to me? Well, my kids and myself and my family, we would be sent back to Texas, and rightfully so. And most countries in the world do that, but not the United States. Let's deal with the issue of the cost of people in the system that are illegally in the country and figure out the most humane, ethical and financially beneficial way to deal with it. But one way not to deal with it is what we're doing now is allowing people that are illegally in the country to go to our universities and pay in-state tuition. That makes no sense. And Texas, unfortunately, is one of these States. You see, if you are illegally in the country, you can go to the University of Texas and pay in-state tuition. But if you're from Oklahoma, God bless you, or you're from Germany and you want to go to the University of Texas, you pay out-of-state tuition because you ain't from around here. But if you're illegally in the country, we allow you to go to the University of Texas and pay in-state tuition. So, we benefit people illegally in the country over American citizens and foreign nationals who are coming here the right way. It makes no sense to me. And with the high cost of education, and as a parent, and most parents who have to pay for this education, it doesn't seem fair to me that we penalize American citizens and legal foreign nationals who want to go to our universities. So, education is one of those. Health care costs is another one. I've discussed that. I don't have time to talk about Parkland Hospital in Dallas where most of the babies that are born there every year are born to mothers that are illegally in the country. There is a whole network of individuals, pregnant mothers from south of the Texas border, and I don't just include Mexico, but there is a whole network, work your way up to Dallas, wait your turn, go to Parkland Hospital and have your baby, and your baby is now an American citizen. We have to deal with that. And of course the health care cost is being paid by somebody. We've talked a lot about health care and expenses and how Americans can't afford it, and that's true. You know, middle-class America, people making up to $100,000, $80,000, they can't afford health care costs. They can't afford to pay for the insurance. But if you're illegally in the country, of course, all you've got to do is show up at the emergency room, the most expensive health care, and somebody else pays for it. And that's people that are paying taxes, legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. So, health care costs are being driven up by people who are here illegally. The criminal justice system. I mentioned I was a judge down to Houston forever, 22 years. And on any given day they tell me over in the sheriff's department that about 20 percent of the people in jail waiting to be tried, waiting for their felony trials, that's what I tried was felonies, are people from other countries, most of them illegally in the United States. The prison system, State, Federal, local, is all being driven up in cost by criminals that are over here. Not everybody is a criminal of course, but some of them do come over here and commit crime. And it's important that we have to deal with that issue and the cost as well. Madam Speaker, the GAO did a study on our borders, and here is what they did. They got some of their people to drive back and forth across the American border with Canada and Mexico, and they wanted to see if they could get into the United States illegally. And they did. They used fake documents that they had manufactured, just like other people do. And what they were bringing in was radioactive material that went undetected when they kept crossing back and forth the border between the United States and Canada and the border with Mexico. And I give you that example because, in the big scheme of things, open borders is an invitation for terrorists who want to do us harm. The next terrorist attack that happens in this country is not going to be because somebody lands over here at Reagan National Airport, gets off the plane and says, I wonder what damage I can do to America. It's not going to happen that way. They're going to probably just come across the border because it's easier to do that. And we should be very concerned about that issue because, you see, open borders, you get the good, you get the bad, and you get the ugly. And those terrorists are certainly bad and ugly. So, Madam Speaker, we need the moral will, as a country, to enforce the rule of law. All those different groups that have a political agenda, or some other agenda rather than national security, have an influence over our national security issue. And maybe we need to deal with what is best for America. And we start with the basics. We secure the border and you make sure that people who come here come here the right way. We streamline the Immigration Service so people don't have to wait so long before they come here, whether they want to be a citizen or whether they want to work or whether they want to be a student. That's a whole other issue, the Immigration Service. But streamline that. Make it efficient. Make sure that we use documents, such as a passport, to come into the United States. We protect the borders of other nations, Madam Speaker. We protect the border of Korea. We're over there protecting the border in Iraq. We protect the borders of other nations better than we protect our own border. Third World countries protect their borders greater than the greatest power that has ever existed protects its borders. Why? It's because we don't have the will to do it. We do a lot of talking about it, but we don't do much about it. As I mentioned, I've been down to the Texas-Mexico border 13 times. Every time I go down there, it gets worse. A sheriff in one of the counties told me, I said, What's it like down here? He said, After dark it gets western. I said, What do you mean by that? He said, It gets western. It's violent. And while we were down there, we heard gunshots coming from the other side of the border. It's a serious situation, and Americans need to realize it. And I invite every Member of Congress to go down to the border and see what it's like. Because if we're going to make rules about immigration reform and border security and national security, we need to see what the war zone is like to make those decisions. And I invite them all to go down there. Go with me, because I'm going back. So, we need to prosecute businesses that knowingly hire illegals. They shouldn't get a pass because they own the business. We go after the worker that's over here and try to deport them. That's the wrong method. The method ought to be, go after the business, because if the business owner doesn't hire illegals, that person doesn't have a place to work and they'll go home. Oklahoma has already proven that with their State law. We need to put America first. And Madam Speaker, we cannot continue to be blissfully ignorant of the truth on the border. This is a great country, a country, as we hear, that is made up of mostly immigrants, people who came here the right way at some point in time. And we want to continue to be a Nation of immigrants. But the rule of law needs to be followed. It has to be followed. And we need to enforce the security of our Nation rather than continue to talk about it. It reminds me of what my grandfather used to say. He said, ``When all is said and done, more is said than done.'' And that's true. We need to do whatever is necessary within the law. I, for one, believe that we ought to put the National Guard on the border; that would stop it. When the military is on the border, our military is on the Korean border, you don't cross that Korean border without the permission of the United States. Protecting somebody else's border, again. Madam Speaker, it seems to me that open borders invites everyone to come in and invade the United States, and it's time that our country deal with this reality while we're dealing with the war in Iraq, while we're dealing with the war in Afghanistan, while we protect the borders of other nations. Let's deal with the issues of the border security of our own country, the border security on the southern border and the border security on our northern border. We will be a better country for it and a safer country for it. And Madam Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the city of Baytown, Texas will celebrate its 60th anniversary on January 24, 2008. Baytown's rich history of rugged Texas pioneers, oil boom settlements and economic contributions to Texas span more than 150 years. Some of the first settlers to the area included Nathaniel Lynch who set up a ferry crossing in 1822 at the junction of the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou. The crossing, now known as the Lynchburg Ferry, continues in operation today by Harris County. William Scott, one of Stephen F. Austin's Old Three Hundred families, received a land grant in 1824. A settlement grew near his home on San Jacinto Bay which included a small store and a sawmill. This settlement became known as Bay Town. The story of the present Baytown also encompasses the cities of Goose Creek and Pelly. The discovery of oil was the common thread that wove the three cities' history together. In 1916, the Goose Creek oilfield became famous as the first offshore drilling operation in Texas. Both of the towns of Pelly and Goose Creek developed around the oil field. Ross S. Sterling and his business associates built a refinery near Goose Creek in 1917 and founded the Humble Oil and Refining Company which later became Exxon Company U.S.A. Humble Oil purchased 2,200 acres in the area and called it Baytown. The town grew up around the refinery as the company built streets, sold lots, provided utilities and offered financing for workers to purchase a home. Each city operated independently for several years but talks began to arise among residents of consolidating the three cities after World War I. After several failed attempts at consolidation, the cities reached an agreement in 1947. On January 24, 1948, the city of Baytown was officially established. Today, Baytown continues to live up to its rich legacy of industry and community spirit. Exxon is still a major part of the city's petroleum industry along with several other major oil companies. Baytown is now also home to Goose Creek Consolidated ISD and Lee College which provide outstanding educational opportunities for students. The future of Baytown shines bright as a great city in which to live, work and play. There are two well-known landmarks in Baytown, a giant live oak tree and the Fred Hartman Bridge. One landmark illustrates the rich history of the city's past and the other symbolizes its promising future. The live oak tree, estimated to be more than 1,000 years old, grows in the center of West Texas Avenue. It has lived since Native Americans roamed the coastal plains, the battles of the Texas Revolution were fought and the Texas oil field discoveries were made. The 440-foot tall Fred Hartman Bridge, a steel cable bridge that spans across the Houston Ship Channel, is Baytown's symbol of modern engineering and Texas-sized strength. It is an honor to represent a part of Baytown as a portion of the Second Congressional District. My fellow colleague and friend, Gene Green represents the other part of Baytown in the United States Congress. Congressman Green and I are proud to have worked with Baytown Mayor Stephen DonCarlos and the city council on numerous projects concerning the city. They are commended for their leadership in helping Baytown grow. I look forward to seeing Baytown prosper in the future and wish the city Happy Birthday as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, as the sponsor of the 2008 National Stalking Awareness Month resolution, I hope this resolution serves as a unifying force for community leaders, policymakers, victim service providers, and able to educate Americans on the serious dangers of stalking. It is a crime that annually affects more than 1 million women and over 400,000 men in our country. As the cochairman and founder of the Congressional Victims Rights Caucus, and my experience as a prosecutor and a judge, I had met with countless victims and victim service providers about the dangers of stalking. Unfortunately, stalking is not an isolated occurrence. Two-thirds of the stalkers pursue their victims at least once a week, sometimes daily. Victims often feel that there is no safe place for them to go, no safe place to hide, not even in their homes. Stalking forces victims to relocate, lose their jobs, and cycle into severe depression and anxiety. Some victims live in quiet, desperate lives of fear. With today's advanced technology, protecting Americans from stalking is even more challenging. Stalkers have a wide range of technologies to pursue on their victims. They use cell phones. They use fax machines, computer spyware, and GPS systems all to track the victim. The Internet now serves cyberstalkers looking for a place to threaten and harass. Even pedophiles on the prowl use cyberstalking for their next victim. Stalking rates are on the rise because of the new technologies in the Internet. Stalking has only been criminalized in our country for 28 years. California was the first State to make stalking a crime. Like domestic violence, stalking is about power, intimidation, and control over the victim. While stalking is now a crime in every State and the District of Columbia and the Federal Government, stalking often leads to other crimes, including physical assault, sexual assault, and murder. Stalking laws are basic to the individual right to be left alone and the right of privacy. The best way to attack the threat of stalking is through law enforcement and education. I encourage victim service providers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and community leaders to promote awareness of stalking, and I thank them for their efforts in making life better for victims.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, what do toys, pet food, jewelry, toothpaste, lipstick, and glazed pottery have in common? Well, if these products are from China, it's toxic chemical poisoning. In 2007, millions of toys were imported to the United States from the People's Republic of China, and then they were recalled after it was discovered that they contained high amounts of lead paint. Mr. Speaker, one of those was Thomas the Tank Engine, and here is a photograph of it. It was one of many of the millions of toys recalled; 1.5 million of these toys were recalled because they were made in China and had lead in them, in the paint that covered these toys. Of course, everyone knows that lead poisoning can cause serious problems for children, including learning disabilities, kidney failure, irreversible brain damage, and anemia. Here in the United States, the leading cause of lead poisoning in children used to be old paint, but U.S. manufacturers stopped using this toxic ingredient over 30 years ago. But despite this ban on U.S. manufacturers, China consistently failed to maintain the same level of concern over the health and safety of consumers in the United States that it sells products to. In 2006, the United States imported billions of dollars worth of toys, dolls, and games from China. That was approximately 85 percent of the United States' total imports of these products worldwide. And yet, between January and December of last year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 17 million Chinese toys, all due to excessive amounts of lead. Another 10 million Chinese toys were recalled last year due to other dangerous manufacturing defects like loose magnets, toxic chemicals on beads, and items that are burn hazards. Also, Mr. Speaker, during that same period, the FDA recalled 150 pet brand foods from China which were believed to cause the deaths of hundreds of pets in the United States; it seems they contained fertilizer. So, Chinese products contain lead in their exported toys for tots to Americans and contain fertilizer in pet foods that kill our dogs. But that's not all, however. The FDA has also recalled tires, lunch boxes, toothpaste that had antifreeze in it, and fake drugs due to consumer safety and health concerns. This is all from products from China. And in all, Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the recalls issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission last year involved Chinese products. This kind of disregard for the well-being of America's consumers is not acceptable and should not be tolerated by our government. American companies buy these products because they're cheap. You see, a person in China gets paid about 67 cents an hour. Even illegals in this country won't work for that. And since the 1980s, China has been privileged to receive most-favored-nation treatment from the United States. China is the second largest U.S. trading partner, but most of the billion dollars in trade goes to China. It's a one-way street. It's a free-trade street for China, and it's all for cheap, dangerous products made with cheap, sweatshop labor in China. As the second largest U.S. trading partner, China must conform to the standards of safety that are required of American companies for the well-being of Americans. Even better, why don't American companies buy goods that are manufactured in the United States? And lastly, Mr. Speaker, Chinese manufacturing companies are notorious polluters of their own environment. It's time for a day of reckoning with cheap, dangerous communist Chinese products. We hear talk of free trade, but what we need is fair trade with China, something that's fair to American consumers. Americans should look to see if the products they buy are made in China. If so, they should ignore those products and look for an item made in the United States. What a novel idea. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in the desert sand dunes near the western town of Yuma, Arizona, Mexican border raiders have struck again. These outlaws snuck into America driving high dollar SUVs. They were smuggling dope into America. But American lawmen were waiting for these bandits. Upon seeing the good guys, however, the drug dealers sped back toward the safe haven of complacent Mexico. Border Agent Louis Aguilar of El Paso, Texas, cut them off and threw tire spikes into their path. But the illegal driving a fancy Humvee at a speed of 55 miles an hour ran over and killed Agent Aguilar. One witness said ``the driver swerved and hit the agent on purpose.'' The Humvee, bandits and drugs disappeared in the dust across the border to a protected hideout in the badlands of Mexico. Aguilar was 32, married and had two little kids. The Mexican government said it will find the killers. Yeah, right. There is a border war going on, Madam Speaker. Agents should have the authority to prevent the infiltration of criminal bandits into our homeland by any legal means necessary. Otherwise, our Nation will continue to be at risk by these invaders. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3432, an act to establish a commission on the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. The House passed this bill on October 2nd of last year, and today we take it up again as amended by the Senate, which removed three lines of authorizing language. For over 200 years, countless Africans died appalling deaths during the so-called ``Middle Passage,'' the inhumane overseas voyage of their lives to slavery. Many Africans never made it to the Americas because they died on the way. In that era, as throughout history, man's inhumanity to man had a lot to do with money. The Middle Passage referred to a middle portion of a triangular trade in cargo and people that began and ended in Europe. Portuguese, English, Spanish, French, Dutch and other traders, including Americans, arrived on the West Coast of Africa where they sold or traded European cargo of textiles, firearms and other goods for Africans, who had been enslaved or kidnapped in many cases by other Africans. From there, they began the inhumane ``Middle'' journey to the Caribbean Islands and the Americas, during which many of them died. In the New World, which included North and South America and the Caribbean Islands, the slaves were sold for profit and traded for colonial goods that traveled mainly back to Europe, such as rum, sugar, rice and molasses. Most of the victims of the Atlantic slave trade ended up in the Caribbean Islands and South America. Approximately 5 percent ended up in North America. These humans served as cheap forced labor for profiteers. As recognized in this bill, the Transatlantic Slave Act went into effect 200 years ago this month, prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States. President Thomas Jefferson authorized this act in 1808. Sadly, in spite of the formal prohibition and the act of Congress, this shameful institution of slavery persisted in this country for nearly 6 decades afterwards. This bill will establish a commission to ensure that this important anniversary is appropriately commemorated within the United States and abroad. It will help afford all Americans the opportunity to learn more about the institution of slavery and its vestiges so that we may understand this tragic aspect of history. In addition to promoting greater tolerance and understanding within the United States, this commission can also help shed light on the fact that slavery still exists in the modern world 200 years after the transatlantic slave trade was abolished. It exists today as it did in the past because of greed. It exists in the form of human trafficking. It exists wherever any group is systematically robbed of their fundamental human rights. These problems are undeniably real for the hundreds and thousands of women and children who are trafficked internationally every year. Madam Speaker, it is appropriate, on the day after we honor the late Dr. Martin Luther King, a humanitarian and advocate of basic human rights, that we pass this legislation. I want to thank the author of the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his efforts. I urge all colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, today it is cold in Washington. It is snowing. They say it may snow some more. But there are two places in the United States that are colder than in this city, and they are in separate places. They are two prison cells, Federal penitentiaries, where two border agents, now, today have spent one calendar year in confinement for doing their job on the Texas-Mexico border. Madam Speaker, it seems as though border agents Ramos and Compean have been punished for doing what we hired them to do. Because, you see, when they were patrolling the Texas-Mexico border, a drug smuggler came into the United States bringing almost a million dollars worth of drugs into this country. They had a confrontation with this drug dealer. They both believed him to have a weapon. Shots were fired, and he disappeared in Mexico, leaving his load of drugs in this country. Unbeknownst to them, they shot the drug smuggler. A few months later, our Federal Government relentlessly went and found this drug dealer, brought him back to the United States and gave him immunity from his crimes to testify against the border agents for, get this, a civil rights violation against him, the drug smuggler. They were tried and they were convicted and sent to the Federal penitentiary for 11 and 12 years. But what the jury in that trial did not know was that the U.S. Justice Department, the Attorney General's Office, hid evidence in that case from the jury, because Madam Speaker, they not only made a deal with this drug smuggler not to prosecute him for bringing in a million dollars worth of drugs; while he is waiting to testify at the trial, he brings in another load of drugs. And then our U.S. Attorney's Office had the audacity for months to deny that ever occurred. But now the truth has come out. Now we know. Now the whole world knows that that evidence was hidden from the jury. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has heard this case on appeal. We are waiting to see if they reverse the case because the U.S. Attorney's Office hid evidence that the jury should have heard because, you see, the star witness, the witness that the U.S. Attorney's Office made a backroom deal with, brought in other drugs. The jury should have known that to judge the credibility of the witness. And this is not the first time the U.S. Attorney's Office has done this. In the year 2000, another border agent by the name of David Sipes came in contact with a human smuggler. He had a fight with him in the Rio Grande River as the human smuggler was bringing in people. And then David Sipes was prosecuted for, yes, a civil rights violation for assaulting the human smuggler. In that particular case, the U.S. Attorney's Office did the same thing. They hid evidence from the jury. They hid from the jury that this human smuggler was given $80,000 as a settlement, that he was allowed to cross back and forth between the United States and Mexico, that he was given a Texas driver's license, a U.S. Social Security card. And also in that case, yes, that human smuggler, while waiting to testify, brought in another load of illegals into this country. But in that case, the U.S. Attorney's Office was caught. A new trial was ordered because they hid evidence, and that jury in that case found David Sipes, border agent, not guilty because the U.S. Attorney's Office was not seeking justice but convictions. It makes us wonder what our U.S. Attorney's Office is doing and what side of they border war they are on. They are supposed to be protecting Americans. They are supposed to be protecting the border agents. But yet they seem to prefer protecting human smugglers and drug dealers. That makes us wonder whether the Justice Department needs to be investigated as to their priorities, because this ought not to be. Yet two border agents are still in prison 1 year today. They have served time, and they should be released. The President should pardon them, and hopefully the Fifth Circuit will do the right thing and order a new trial in this case. Our government needs to be on the right side of the border war and support our border agents and make people understand that you can't bring drugs and illegals into the country without being prosecuted. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, economic forecasters are similar to the weather forecasters: they are the only people who can consistently be wrong about their predictions and keep their jobs, and we listen to them anyway. The doom-and-gloom economic nay-sayers have predicted for years that the economy is in trouble, but the last years of economic growth have proved them wrong. Now this year, they say we are headed for a fearful recession. Well, we shall see. In any event, some of these pseudoeconomic forecasters say we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. Well, that makes no sense. In fact, we ought to do just the opposite. We need to make the tax cuts permanent because tax cuts historically prove they work. They work to stimulate the economy. They did so under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush. Americans need to keep more of their own money, and the economy will prosper. And who benefits from tax cuts? Anybody that pays taxes benefits from tax cuts. Americans who don't pay taxes are not affected. Cut the fraud and abuse in the Federal bureaucracies, cut wasteful spending, and cut taxes to bring a sunny forecast to our economy. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, during a routine traffic stop, an illegal immigrant named Juan Leonardo Quintero-Perez shot Houston Police Officer Rodney Johnson in the back of the head and killed him. This case highlights the illegal immigrant epidemic in this country. It seems, however, that Juan Quintero-Perez had already been deported before from the United States. In 1998, Quintero was arrested and convicted of indecency with a child in Texas and then was deported back to Mexico. But Perez was able to return to the United States a few months later because his employer, Robert Camp, sent money to Mexico to hire a smuggler that snuck Perez back to Houston. Camp knew that Quintero-Perez was an illegal immigrant and a criminal, but Camp hired him again anyway. Camp even rented a home for Quintero-Perez, and then Perez murdered Officer Johnson. Those who knowingly hire and house illegal immigrants, all in the name of making a little money, should go to jail. Rodney Johnson's blood is on the hands of the employer who brought the illegal outlaw back to the United States. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for sponsoring this resolution. On December 27, 2007, the world reeled as it received news that a suicide terrorist and others had assassinated Pakistan's freedom fighter and beacon of democracy, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, during a peaceful political rally. She was educated in the tradition of western democratic philosophy, and received her higher education training at Oxford and Harvard University. She has been the voice in support of a democratic Pakistan for more than 20 years. In 1988, at the age of 35, she became the youngest person and the first female elected to lead a Muslim state. Since that time, Ms. Bhutto has remained committed to the restoration of a true democracy in Pakistan. When Ms. Bhutto returned to Pakistan last year, she knew she was putting her life at risk because, Madam Speaker, the violent enemies of democracy throughout the world are numerous. But her commitment to democracy in Pakistan was stronger than her fear of death. As the daughter of a former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Bhutto used to say she did not choose her life but that it chose her instead. The truth is she chose freedom and democracy, and her love for those principles compelled her continuous bold, even boisterous voice of democracy for the Pakistani people. Ms. Bhutto has been described as a defiant and strong-willed leader. In life and in death, her charisma and determination have been admired by people throughout the world. She was a beacon of democracy in Pakistan, and I join my colleagues in condemning her assassination with the expectation that the current government will seek out and find all of the assassins. Pakistan has been a loyal ally and friends of the United States since 1947. The United States stands with the people of Pakistan. We affirm our commitment to the Pakistani people in combating terrorism and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan. The long lamentable history of human conduct is filled with the names of martyrs who have been murdered for the cause of freedom. Today, we add the name of one more. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, murder in the name of religion has struck again. This time it happened in Dallas, Texas. On New Year's Day law enforcement officials found the bullet-riddled bodies of two teenage sisters, 17-year-old Sarah Said and 18-year-old Amina Said. They were found in the back seat of their father's taxicab. Now their father, Yaser Said, a Muslim and an Egyptian-born immigrant, is on the run. Authorities believe he murdered the girls after he found out they had American boyfriends. Family members say the murder was motivated by a Muslim tradition known as ``honor killing.'' According to this tradition, religious extremists justify homicide in the name of religion in order to correct the ``shame'' that a family member has brought on the family. Well, in the United States it is absolutely never acceptable, let alone honorable, to murder your own kids. This criminal needs to be tried and sent to prison. We live in a Nation that values life and liberty. And no father has a right to kill his daughters and try to claim the defense, ``My religion made me do it.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, soon our United States Supreme Court will hear the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana and decide whether capital punishment is permitted in rape cases where the victim is a child that is 12 or under. Patrick Kennedy was sentenced in Louisiana to death after a jury convicted him of raping his own 8-year-old daughter. The facts show that he even tried to cover up the rape by cleaning up the evidence and then he blamed the rape on two neighborhood boys. New Louisiana law allows the death sentence for raping a child that is under the age of 12, so Kennedy v. Louisiana asks the Supreme Court, among other things, to decide whether the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution, the cruel and unusual punishment clause, permits a State to punish the crime of rape of a child under the death penalty. In 1977, the Supreme Court decided that a death sentence for rape of an adult woman was unconstitutional under a case called Coker v. Georgia. Coker really didn't discuss child rape, even though the victim in that case was 16 years of age. But since the Coker decision, State courts have interpreted it to limit death penalty crimes to certain murders. Those murders are what I call the murder-plus doctrine. There must not only be a homicide, but there must be some felony committed or some other unusual circumstance, like murder during a kidnapping, murder during a robbery, murder during a sexual assault, or murder of a police officer, and that is the doctrine that has been basically substantiated by the Supreme Court. However, last year, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Coker v. Georgia doesn't apply in their particular case of capital punishment and rape cases when the victim is under 12 because it would still be murder-plus, murder plus the victim was under the age of 12; thus, it would fulfill the Supreme Court's requirements under the Constitution. No one has been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder since 1964. Many States, including my home State of Texas, before that time allowed the death penalty for robbery by firearm, kidnapping, and sexual assault. But since those days, only murder plus some other felony is allowed under our Constitution. There are approximately 3,300 inmates on death row in the United States, and only two of them face the death penalty for an event that did not involve a homicide as well as a felony, and those two are the two that are on Louisiana's death row. One is the petitioner in the upcoming Supreme Court case that the Supreme Court will decide very soon; the other is an individual by the name of Richard Davis, who was recently sentenced to death in Louisiana for sexually assaulting a 5- year-old girl. Louisiana argues that the rape of a child is like no other crime. It also points out that the recent enactment of similar laws has occurred in other States such as Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas, my home State. Louisiana argues that it is compelling evidence of a national trend toward treating child rape as a distinct type of crime from other types of crimes. But the issue will be whether the Supreme Court will allow States to make this decision for themselves, or will the Supreme Court continue to mistakenly go down the path and rely on international law, as it did when it barred the death penalty for 17-year-olds in a case called Roper v. Simmons. In Texas, 17-year-olds are adults, but the Supreme Court said no longer can 17-year-olds be executed for any crime. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will quit using international law and decide whether it is constitutional or not to execute someone for raping a child under the age of 12 based on American jurisprudence and our Constitution. Madam Speaker, a death sentence fits the crime of child rape because a child rape victim suffers for the rest of their natural lives. Madam Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was a judge for 22 years in Texas, and before that I was a prosecutor. Many years ago, when I prosecuted cases, I prosecuted an individual who raped a 9-year-old. When her mother testified on the witness stand, she would not refer to the crime as rape or as sexual assault. She referred to that crime as a fate worse than death. And when she explained to the jury what that meant, she was saying that being sexually assaulted as a child is a fate worse than death. Hopefully our Supreme Court will not require a child victim to be murdered before the Supreme Court will allow the death penalty for the perpetrator, because it is, as this lady has testified many years ago, a fate worse than death. When a person commits a crime of sexual assault, they try to steal the soul of a victim. So, Madam Speaker, I support a State's right to decide for itself whether or not a child rapist should be executed or not, because children are more important than rapists. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to recognize Mr. Roosevelt Petry, Jr., President and CEO of GP Industrial Contractors, Inc. He began his professional career as a draftsman for Bethlehem Steel, performing piping, mechanical, electrical, and structural drafting. He worked for fifteen years on electrical instrumentation, mechanical and pipe designing, residential, and commercial construction, and has been a senior designer, project engineer, project manager, and project superintendent. Each job garnered Mr. Petry the necessary skills for his company to secure massive projects such as the Toyota Center, Minute Maid Park, and other high profile projects around the country. Mr. Petry received his bachelor's degree from Lamar University in 1997, and one year later, he founded GP Industrial Contractors. He partnered with an acquaintance who owned Gulf Copper Manufacturing Company to form a company specializing in building refineries and petrochemical plants. Piping, steel fabrication, carpentry, maintenance, and engineering, are just a few of the services his company offers. Mr. Petry attributes all of his success to God, and doesn't think twice about giving back to the community. With a focus on youth education, he shared his knowledge as an instructor at Lamar University, teaching AutoCAD, surveying and drafting. He and his wife recently donated money to create an endowment scholarship at Lamar State College, for nursing and engineering students in Port Arthur. Currently, he hosts the Roosevelt Petry, Jr. Business Hour on KSAP 107.1--the Breeze, in Port Arthur, TX. After Hurricane Rita, Mr. Petry's GP Industrial Contractors were there to help the small gulf coast community of Sabine Pass pick up the pieces, assisting in rebuilding. He has served the community as Commissioner of the Port Arthur Housing Authority; Chairman of the Port Arthur Economic Development Corporation; Member of the Port Arthur Citizen Advisory Committee; Member of the National Society of Black Engineers; Board of Directors for Junior Achievement; and Board of Directors for the United Way. He also serves on the Military Academy Selection Board for our Congressional District. Over the years, Mr. Petry's hard work and community involvement have resulted in several honors and awards, including Score's 2007 Business Man of the Year Award; 2006 Port Arthur Economic Development Corporation's Business of the Year Award; 2004 Houston Minority Business Council's Emerging Ten Award; 2002 Lamar State College Port Arthur's Industrial Business of the Year Award; 2004 Make Ready, Inc. 4th Annual Humanitarian Award; and he was featured in the National Society of Black Engineers in 2000. This Port Arthur native has shown that your environment and circumstances don't predict your future. Hard work and perseverance have been the lifeblood of Mr. Petry's success. Port Arthur's future is brighter because of Mr. Petry's continuing commitment and involvement in our community. Roosevelt Petry seizes the opportunities that come his way and has a positive attitude and zest for life. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of government is to protect the people. It is a very simple but yet fundamental principle of the United States Constitution. Our Federal Government has to protect us from enemies from abroad, and our government does a good job of doing that. Our government also has the secondary responsibility to protect citizens in our country, and our government does a fairly good job of that. But there is a unique problem where our government seems to be lacking, and that's protecting citizens that are working overseas for American contractors against other American citizens who commit crimes against them. Today, Mr. Speaker, in the Judiciary Committee, a brave young lady came and testified about what happened to her, an individual by the name of Jamie Leigh Jones from my congressional district down in Texas. As a young 20-year-old she went to work for KBR Construction Company overseas in Iraq. She was there just a few days when she was sexually assaulted by several individuals. After she was assaulted, Army doctors intervened and treated her initially for her medical injuries, which were devastating. The medical doctors took and prepared a rape kit, as is supposed to be done in cases like a criminal investigation, and for some reason, they never turned that rape kit over to the Federal Government, to the Justice Department, to the FBI. They turned it over to the company, and it has subsequently been damaged and destroyed. After Jamie Leigh Jones was sexually assaulted, she was imprisoned as a hostage in a trailer, as she says, where she was not allowed to leave, was not allowed to eat or drink water. She frantically was able to find a cell phone that one of her guards let her borrow. She called her father in Texas, and he called me. And within 48 hours the State Department had dispatched two agents from Baghdad Embassy, found Jamie Leigh Jones, rescued her, and brought her back to the United States. We would hope, then, that our government would continue this investigation to find the rapist who committed this crime against Jamie Leigh Jones. This occurred in the year of 2005, and for these 2 years we have heard blissful silence from the United States Justice Department on what they are doing, if anything, to find these criminals who committed this crime. After Jamie Leigh Jones has now come public with this, my office has received numerous phone calls from other workers who were contract workers, civilians, all females who were assaulted while working in Iraq who are now coming forward to tell their stories. And in their case, like Jamie Leigh Jones, nobody has been prosecuted and held accountable for the crimes committed against these women, these American citizens, these American patriots who are working overseas with our military, but yet crimes are being committed against them. And there is silence from the Justice Department about what is being done, if anything. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq and what has taken place against civilian workers is reminiscent of the days of the Old West, the Wild West, where crime was committed and no one was held accountable for their conduct. There are hundreds of Department of Justice officials in Baghdad doing all kinds of things. Why aren't they investigating crimes against civilian workers that are being committed by other Americans? We don't know the answer. It's important that our government fulfill its first duty to its people, which is to protect them, and when crimes are committed against American civilians by other Americans in foreign lands, where we have jurisdiction in the green zone of Baghdad, that our government be relentless in bringing those people, those criminals, to the bar of justice and put them in jail rather than remain silent and not responding at all to these crimes. So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, as this year ends and the next year begins that our Federal Government, our Justice Department, has a renewed interest in the Americans that are overseas. More Americans are serving in Iraq that are civilians than are serving in the military. And we know that crimes are being committed against them. It's important that those criminals be brought to the bar of justice and held accountable in a public trial because, Mr. Speaker, justice is what we do in America. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Christmas will be here in less than 1 week. Most of us will be with people that are very important to us. But not so for Border Agents Ramos and Compean who are locked up tonight for protecting the Texas-Mexico border from smugglers, especially an admitted drug smuggler. These agents are in prison for their failure to fill out proper paperwork after shooting this drug smuggler bringing in $1 million worth of dope to the United States. The U.S. Attorneys Office made a backroom deal with the drug smuggler for his testimony, and even the U.S. Attorneys Office admits that he told some lies. Be that as it may, our government was on the wrong side of the border war in this case. The border agents should be freed by Christmas and put the drug dealer in jail. So there will not be justice this Christmas for our border agents because the U.S. Attorneys Office is obviously the grinch who stole Christmas from our border agents. And that's just the way it is.