Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the war in Iraq is the most difficult and important issue facing our Nation today. The stakes there are simply too high for us to ignore the consequences of failure. Most military analysts agree that an arbitrary immediate withdrawal from Iraq would spiral that country and the surrounding region into chaos. Failing to secure Iraq will provide a fertile ground for terrorist actions that affect not only Iraq, but America and the rest of the free world. Extremist organizations will tout an American retreat as a major victory for terrorism. Once again saying that America doesn't ever have the stomach to finish a war. Terrorist leaders will make use of a fractured Iraq to train, equip, and provide sanctuary for their forces in much the same way that Afghanistan provided a haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda. Radicals will exploit the anarchy and abandon Iraq and will seek to spread jihadist movements to moderate Arab States. Arbitrary withdrawal will only encourage our enemy. War is hard, but a planned defeat by retreat is hardly an answer to success. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly a proponent of this amendment. I represent southeast Texas. We have a TRACON at Houston Intercontinental Airport. We have one in Beaumont, 90 miles away. And I am not convinced that the consolidation of these two TRACONs in Houston is a good idea for safety. I'm also concerned about the fact that we have more and more planes in the air, but yet the FAA wants to have fewer and fewer facilities in the United States to control that aviation. I'm also concerned, as the gentleman from Florida is, about security. Down in southeast Texas, what I represent, I represent the number one refinery in the United States, the number two refinery in the United States. Twenty-two percent of the Nation's aviation fuel is produced in my area. And if there was some tragic event, some terrorist attack on Houston and the Intercontinental Airport, who would be controlling the skies? Some TRACON unit in Oklahoma City and New Mexico? I think not. I think it is good that we have two TRACONs in the area. And, lastly, I am not convinced that this would save any money. Just as we went through with the BRAC military base closures, we are finding that that did not save the taxpayers any money, especially with Ellington Field in Houston. So for all those reasons I think this is a wise amendment for safety and security, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Law Library of Congress was created by an Act of Congress in 1832. That year, President Andrew Jackson signed the bill into law stating that: ``. . . be it enacted by the Senate and House . . . that it shall be the duty of the librarian to prepare an apartment near . . . Congress . . . for the purpose of a law library.'' Since then the Law Library's mission has expanded beyond service to Congress, to include making its resources available to the Supreme Court, other branches of the U.S. Government, the American public and the global legal community. The Law Library's first systematic effort to collect legal documents from foreign nations began soon after the U.S.-Mexican War, when Congress directed the Law Library to obtain all available laws of Mexico; later, the laws of the major European nations were also added to the collection. The Law Library grew significantly during the 20th century, developing a much larger and well-cataloged collection, and publishing many authoritative reference works on U.S. and foreign laws. A sustained program for the acquisition of foreign legal material began after World War II, reflecting the expanding number of foreign jurisdictions, as well as the changing position of the United States in world affairs. The Law Library now has an unparalleled collection of 2.6 million volumes and is staffed by more than 100 lawyers, librarians, and other professionals. The mission of The Law Library of Congress, the de facto national law library, is to make its resources available to Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, other branches of the U.S. Government, and the global legal community, and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of law for future generations. Unique among libraries, the Law Library is a repository of legal and legislative documents from around the world, and the most comprehensive, current, and reliable resource of its kind. In addition to housing some of the world's rarest legal sources, the Law Library stands as the primary resource for legal research for the United States Congress in U.S. law as well as foreign, comparative, and international law. The Law Library also conducts legal research for other branches of the U.S. Government and provides resources and services for the national and global legal community. Dr. Rubens Medina has been the Law Librarian of Congress, since 1994. He holds a law degree from the National University of Asuncion, Paraguay, a Ph.D. in Law and Sociology from the University of Wisconsin and has practiced and taught law in Paraguay and Chile. As Law Librarian of Congress, Medina manages and directs the government's only general legal research library and the largest law library in the world. Medina also serves as Chair of the Executive Council of the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), an international cooperative information system developed and maintained by the Law Library to serve the United States Congress. The recipient of numerous awards and fellowships, Medina recently was presented with a 2007 Federal 100 Award for shepherding the 2006 upgrade of GLIN, thereby providing citizens and nations with a means of accessing laws and related legal material from nations across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, in 13 searchable languages. Medina first came to the Library of Congress in 1971, when he was appointed Chief of the Hispanic Law Division. He held the position until 1994, when he was appointed the 21st Law Librarian of Congress. On July 14, 2007, the Law Library of Congress celebrated its 175th anniversary with a Gala Dinner in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress' Jefferson Building. Over 130 of the most respected and influential individuals in the political, legal, and educational world were present, including the Law Librarian of Congress, Dr. Rubens Medina, and the 175th Anniversary Honorary Chairperson, Jeffrey Toobin (from CNN). Madam Speaker, I had the distinguished privilege of being the gala's keynote speaker. The Honorary Committee consisted of members from the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, Congress, and representatives from AT&T, Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Real Networks, Inc., Microsoft, The World Bank, Apple, Sony Corporation and Google. Additional Friends of the Law Library sponsorship came from: Thomson West; Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.; Burton Foundation for Legal Achievement; HeinOnLine; LexisNexis; Roll Call Group; American University and Congressional Quarterly, Inc. All of these society individuals were present to pay homage to the institution that serves as the world's largest law library. The Law Library of Congress is truly one of the greatest resources available to this Nation. Enriched in years of history, it allows individuals from across the world to search for and research hundreds of years of legal advice, opinions, and case decisions, providing these individuals the opportunity to create laws for the future society. I salute the Law Library of Congress on its 175th year anniversary and all its achievements. Here is to another 175 years. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the terrorists we face today are the same enemies that bombed our Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, bombed the World Trade Centers in 1993, attacked Khobar Towers in 1996, bombed our embassy in Africa in 1997. This enemy values death over life and seeks not to negotiate but to war against us. These fanatics, in the name of religion, with a doctrine of hate, preach death to the United States. On September 11, the terrorists brought the fight to us. Now Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, and so is Afghanistan. We cannot give ground to this homicidal enemy because this will only encourage more attacks. The resulting consequences are disaster, destruction and defeat. Today we find ourselves in a global struggle. We have been attacked over and over again by these radicals. War, no one wants war. But war will not end just because we quit, nor because we are weary of war, nor because we desire peace. The enemy will continue this war against us, whether we are in the fight or not. They do not want peace. There can be no peace until we stop them. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, news from the war in Iraq: The Iraq interim assessment report of progress states that sectarian murders in Baghdad are down from what they were in January. Many Iraqis are now coming forward with information to help root out terrorists from their hiding places. On the local level, citizens are forming neighborhood watch groups and young Iraqis are joining the army and the police forces. Measured progress continues in Iraq. The surge strategy has only recently been completely implemented, and it seems that we are seeing positive signs. A policy of surrender and failure in securing Iraq would hold catastrophic consequences for the United States and the Iraqi people. We should be focused on victory, not pandering to the ``peace at any price crowd.'' Those who want retreat, defeat and withdrawal while in the midst of this battle for Iraq have yet to understand that there are consequences for appeasement, and they are bad for the United States and the Iraqi people. Retreat will not bring victory and it will never bring peace. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, a long awaited Senate judiciary hearing on the prosecution of border agents Ramos and Compean occurred today. I was impressed with the Chair, Senator Diane Feinstein from California, and the questioning of Senator John Cornyn of Texas at the hearing. The hearing brought to light the overzealous, overreacting and overreaching prosecution of these two Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean. It also showed us and the American public the difficulty our border protectors have on the U.S.-Mexico border. Chief Aguilar of the Border Patrol said today that violence against border agents has increased. In just the first 4 days of last week, 11 assaults occurred against border agents. Over 2,000 assaults have occurred in the last 2\1/2\ years, and 12 officers have been killed in the last few years. Not only is the border violent because of drug cartels, but violence occurs against these border agents. The border is not Disneyland, but the U.S. Attorney's Office showed they are living in Never Neverland by their relentless determination to see that these agents went to prison for 11 and 12 years a piece for just doing their job on the U.S.-Mexico border. Much was said today, but I want to concentrate on the U.S. Government's main witness, the drug dealer who appears to have been a bought-and-paid-for witness that received immunity from prosecution. He received a get-out-of-jail-free card, received free medical attention for his wounds at the taxpayers' expense, and blanket amnesty to cross and recross the Texas-Mexico border whenever he wished. All this so he would testify against the two border agents, Ramos and Compean. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, it has been my experience that when prosecutors make deals with criminals in return for testimony, they usually get the testimony they want from the criminal, and the same is to be said in this case here. These agents were sent to prison because one of them shot a drug dealer bringing in $1 million worth of drugs into the United States. The agents probably violated some Homeland Security policies, and maybe they should have been sanctioned or even fired, but to let the drug dealer go free because the agents violated a policy was an error in judgment on the part of our own government. And the U.S. Attorney's Office had two choices, Mr. Speaker. They had the choice to prosecute a drug dealer bringing in $1 million worth of drugs, or they had the choice to prosecute two border agents that violated some policy, and our government chose poorly. Of course, the Mexican Government got involved in this case and wrote an arrogant letter demanding prosecution by our government. It seems to me this may be the basis for the prosecution. Let me tell you a little bit about this drug dealer. He received immunity from prosecution, but part of his deal was that he would cooperate with the U.S. Border Patrol and Federal prosecutors. The cooperation? Well, he never would tell who he was working for. He named no names of the drug cartels. He did not cooperate at all. And while he was waiting to testify in this case, he criss-crossed the Texas-Mexico border and brought in another load of drugs worth almost $1 million, and the Feds kept that from the jury. Why wasn't it important to know about this second case? Because the entire prosecution was based on the testimony of the government's star witness, and the jury had the right to know that this drug dealer brought in another load of drugs while waiting to testify. So to judge his credibility as a witness, the jury had the right to know that, and that evidence was kept out at the insistence of the U.S. prosecutors. The U.S. prosecutor made this drug dealer Aldrede to be some poor mule from Mexico that brought in a load of drugs for a little money for his sick mother down in Mexico, and that was not the case. He was an operative that moved back and forth across the Texas-Mexico border, and we know he brought in at least two loads of drugs just in a short period of time in this case. This second load of drugs should have been brought to the attention of the jury. The prosecutors never prosecuted this Aldrede for that. They even had a DEA report that recommended prosecution. I've seen that DEA report, and based on my experience, a third-year law student could have prosecuted that case even though the U.S. Attorney's Office says, oh, there's not enough evidence. The jury should have known about this so as to have judged the credibility of this star witness. So the government chose between border agents to be prosecuted doing their job or a drug dealer testifying and then bringing in drugs into the United States. Our government should be embarrassed about this case. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, those who wear the badge of a peace officer do so with valor and the determination to serve their community. NYPD Officer Russel Timoshenko was one of those peace officers. Officer Timoshenko chose to be an American citizen and legally immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1993. He followed the law to get here and then became a protector of the law as a member of New York City's Finest. Around 2:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Officers Timoshenko and Herman Yan stopped an SUV on a dark New York City street. As the officers approached the SUV, the passengers turned and gunned down both officers. Officer Yan was shot in the chest and arm, and he will recover. Russel Timoshenko was shot twice in the face, and Saturday the 23-year-old officer died. He had been a New York City cop for only 18 months. Two outlaws have been arrested for murder. Mr. Speaker, Officer Russel Timoshenko was the American Dream, a naturalized citizen who dedicated his life and service to American citizens. America can use more American immigrant citizens who wear the badge. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, my grandmother influenced my life in so many ways and she educated me in the ways of the world more than anyone in my life, but to her dismay I broke from her staunchest southern belief--the Democratic Party. I don't know that she ever forgave me for being a Republican and during the 60s, in the heyday of LBJ, she was aghast that anyone could be anything else. Despite my political difference with President Lyndon Johnson, his contributions to Texas as President may only be surpassed by those of his First Lady. This week we said goodbye to one of the finest southern ladies politics and Texas has ever had the pleasure of knowing, Lady Bird Johnson. My grandmother always said, ``there is nothing more powerful than a woman--that has made up her mind!'' There are no truer words; and none that describe our former First Lady better. Claudia Alta Taylor Johnson, known throughout the world simply as Lady Bird, not only changed the landscape of Texas highways, but paved the way for the next generation of women. She was the best example of the powerful role women of her generation played--second to my grandmother of course. While Lady Bird will best be remembered for her love of the environment and the preservation of our natural resources, she was no wallflower in the business and political world either. She was her husband's staunchest supporter and was with him step-for-step throughout his entire career, but at the same time she also carved a path for herself in the business world by turning a debt-ridden Austin radio station into a multi-million dollar broadcast empire. Her resume reads like that of a modern-day Superwoman. Among her many achievements, she played a pivotal part in shaping legislation by lobbying and speaking before Congress in support of the Highway Beautification Bill, or better known as the ``Lady Bird Bill.'' She oversaw every detail in the creation of the LBJ Presidential Library, which became the model for Presidential libraries today, and served faithfully, and often in awe of her colleagues, as a regent of her alma matter, the University of Texas. Like my grandmother she came from a generation of women that were strong and influential. They possessed the grace of an angel, but wielded a heavy-hand in running their affairs--and those of their husbands' for that matter. Few women of their generation worked outside the home, but few men succeeded without the backing of them. Whether they devoted their time to their work or to their home, their influence undoubtedly changed the country we live in today. Texas Congressman Sam Rayburn, longtime friend of President Johnson and House Speaker, once told him, ``marrying Lady Bird was the wisest decision he had ever made.'' Few people know that Lady Bird originally told LBJ ``no,'' when he asked to marry her. Every Spring folks will head up Highway 290 to see wildflowers; and every bluebonnet we see throughout the Texas Hill Country and every tree we plant here at home along Will Clayton Parkway is a tribute to Lady Bird and her determination to ``Keep Texas Beautiful.'' Her legacy and influence will live on forever. I doubt that Texas, nor our country. will ever know a finer lady and patriot than we had in Lady Bird Johnson. As the saying goes, behind every good man, there stands a better woman. May God bless Lady Bird Johnson as she has blessed us. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I addressed this House and discussed how the Zetas drug cartel in Mexico has made it known it will hunt down journalists that report on the violent drug cartels in Mexico. This group of former Mexican military officers reportedly will track these reporters down even when they flee to the United States for safety. All of this because these journalists publish reports on the violent cross-border drug trade. Tonight, I wish to discuss how these same outlaw Mexican drug cartels are operating marijuana plantations on public lands, not public lands in Mexico, but on public lands in the United States. According to news reports, these plant plantations are in California, Arizona, Hawaii, West Virginia, Oregon, Tennessee and Kentucky, and account for 80 to 90 percent of all marijuana plantation production in the United States. Law enforcement officials say that the drug cartels employ heavily armed bandits to guard these fields and they have superior fire power and surveillance equipment over American law enforcement agents. The drug thugs destroy native vegetation and kill off all of the wildlife on the land so they can plant their marijuana crops. The cartels also use dangerous pesticides and fertilizers on the land that destroy the environment. Insultingly, all of this is occurring on American Federal lands. There is more. The Washington Times reports today that ``campers, fishermen, hikers and forest and park officials are being intimidated, threatened or assaulted when they come near Mexican-run marijuana'' plantations on American soil, and that ``all this plant growing produces a street value of $6.7 billion.'' The Union newspaper from Nevada states, ``These American marijuana gardens are guarded by Mexican nationals, and the traffickers use the profits from pot sales to finance large methamphetamine labs in Mexico and the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, it seems that no public land is safe. Even California's Sequoia National Forest has been attacked by these drug cartels. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, John Walters, said, ``Mexican drug cartels are turning our national parks into centers of international drug production and trafficking. Public lands are being held hostage by illegal drug traffickers.'' Mr. Speaker, numerous law enforcement personnel, State, local and Federal, are attempting to retake our Federal and public lands from these drug cartel invaders. Some progress is reported, but the battle for our land goes forward. We cannot allow these land grabbing, environmentally hazardous drug terrorists to seize America's national forests and national parks. These outlaws cannot be allowed to camp in our parks and swim in the profits from marijuana plantations. They should be tracked down, arrested, prosecuted, and put in jail. We need to seize all their money from whatever financial institutions they try to hide it in and use the money to restore our national parks, the way they were before the drug invaders arrived. We need to make it more difficult for them to operate here by actually securing the southern border, something that Homeland Security has yet to accomplish. Right now, security along our southern border is a glittering illusion. Our national parks and forests are worth fighting for, and rather than journalists, campers, fishermen, hunters, and park rangers being afraid of these drug cartels like the Zetas, these outlaw drug gangs should be afraid of our relentless determination to take our land back. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in the last few years, 30 foreign journalists have been murdered in a country torn by war. Violence against reporters is so severe that one American journalist has recently fled back to the United States. The would-be assassins have reportedly even be hired to come to America to track these reporters down. Madam Speaker, I'm not talking about violent Iraq. I am talking about the murder of reporters in Mexico, second highest murder rate in the world for reporters, next to Iraq. One of the vicious violent drug cartels, the Zetas, made up of former Mexican military officers, are targeting journalists who report on their drug activities. Now these dope dealing thugs claim they will just come to the United States, because of our porous borders, and kill these journalists. The United States should heed the warnings reported by these courageous journalists, that these drug cartels are easily criss- crossing the Texas-Mexico border and bringing more drug violence to America and Mexico. Homeland Security should seize control of our border before the cartels seize the lives of any more journalists. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you about the silent war of crime on the social worker community of America. Teri Zenner loved being a social worker. In August 2004, Teri went to check on a routine visit to a mentally unstable client, to make sure that he was taking his medication. When she went into the client's home, he accosted her with a knife and ordered her up into his bedroom, holding her hostage. What his intentions for Teri were are not known. He never got the chance to act on them. He lived with his mother and she came home early from work that day. His mother heard Teri's cries from the lower level of the house and went to investigate. Opening the door to her son's bedroom, the mother saw Teri being held hostage by her son. Teri, seeing her one opportunity to escape, ran for the door. As she tried to free herself, her captor stabbed her in the throat. She continued her desperate run for freedom, but her attacker gave chase and continued to stab her over and over. He then went up to his bedroom, where he had a chainsaw, and continued his assault on Teri with it. Teri Zenner was 26 years old. She died because she was trying to make sure that her attacker had been taking care of himself. I have met Teri's husband, Matt, a wonderful man--he too is a victim of his wife's homicide. I would like to thank Congressman Dennis Moore, KS, for bringing this homicide to the attention of Congress. The issue of social worker safety has become vitally important in the United States. They are literally on the front lines of social violence in our country. Social workers are required to respond to homes to evaluate claims of child abuse and neglect. Many of these situations require that the workers remove the children from the home, a solution that angers the accused parents. These types of situations leave social workers vulnerable to escalating situations and threats of violence, without the training or resources necessary to protect themselves. As the saying goes, ``No good deed goes unpunished.'' The good they do for our community is sometimes punished by people in the community. In 2005 and 2006, in Texas, there were several attacks on social workers. One of those attacks resulted in a social worker being murdered. According to Texas social workers, they are subjected to being ``threatened, cursed at, chased by dogs, spit upon, and run out of houses by angry parents.'' It has become essential for this Nation to protect those who work to protect our children, and others, in our society. For these reasons, Congressman Dennis Moore has introduced H.R. 2165--Teri Zenner Social Worker Safety Act, which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation will establish grants to provide social workers, domestic violence outreach staff, and other individuals who work with at-risk populations with workplace safety measures, equipment, and training. These crimes affect all States and all districts throughout the Nation--and these individuals should not worry about their personal safety while striving to protect the most vulnerable victims--children. Social workers are the second highest at-risk group of people in our society. The first are peace officers. Social workers deserve our protection. Madam Speaker, we need to get to a place in our country where we no longer have the need to name laws after murder victims. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding time on this important issue. Redeployment. Withdrawal. These words mean the same thing, ``we quit.'' ``Quitting'' Iraq is not a plan. It's not even a strategy; it is a total handoff of responsibility to an unstable government with an ill-prepared military. I don't dispute that we must do more to ready Iraqis to handle their own security. I do insist, however, that we cannot suddenly leave the Iraqis scrambling to defend their new brand of democracy amidst chaos. That is what this ``leave at any cost'' plan would do: leave our enemies and those of the Iraqi people unfettered and free to pursue their diabolical agenda in Iraq and throughout the world. So I would like to ask those who want to quit exactly what they plan to do to fight the terrorist operatives in Iraq when our troops turn around and leave. What is the plan? I would also like to know, who, besides the ``New York Times'', is saying that the fight is lost in Iraq? Reports indicate that our troops are making progress. Sectarian murders in Baghdad have declined in the last 6 months. More Iraqis are coming to American troops with information about the terrorists. And Iraqi citizens are organizing against al Qaeda at the local level. Good for them. Mr. Speaker, General Patton sailed with his soldiers from Algiers to Italy in World War II, and he said to them, ``No man is beaten until he thinks he is.'' This war is not over unless we quit. And when we quit, we are certainly defeated. Here is what the defeatists say about the battle. They say that our troops were ill-prepared to go into battle, and there weren't enough of them; that they had inferior equipment; that they had improper uniforms for the extreme weather; U.S. intelligence was flawed; that we underestimated the resolve of the enemy; that Americans and our allies were killed by friendly fire. No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the war in Iraq, but this is the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, a battle that my father fought in. Those Americans, led by General Patton and others, did not run or quit because war is hard. You do not win wars by evacuating. And Americans won the Battle of the Bulge and broke the will of the enemy. I ask this question: How does this plan to force the United States to withdraw from Iraq differ from al Qaeda's plan to force us to withdraw from Iraq? Why wouldn't al Qaeda celebrate if this bill is passed? Mr. Speaker, General Patton went on to say to his troops, ``The glory of American arms, the honor of our country, the future of the whole world rests in our individual hands. See to it that you are worthy of this great trust.'' I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the honor of our country is at stake again today, but that's not all. Our security, the security of Iraqis, and the future of democracy and liberty in the Middle East, all of these are in our hands. Let us be worthy of this trust. And that's the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker: ``Many people think the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photographs before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dwell on the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime and the folly of human strife.'' These words of Winston Churchill in 1934 stressed upon the people of Great Britain that the cynics, who don't believe some things are worth fighting for, should not have their way. They ignore the victories and accomplishments and, instead, focus upon setbacks. War is hard. It has always been hard. Congress will once again debate a timetable retreat for American troops to leave Iraq. The timid will want to turn their back on the enemy and leave a desperate people and a nation floundering; all this because war is hard. Retreat tells the enemy that if they wait America out, we will bow out of the fight. Mr. Speaker, Churchill also remarked, ``war is not won by evacuation.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the blissfully ignorant British bureaucrats have decided to ignore who they are fighting. In the name of political correctness, Prime Minister Brown is refusing to acknowledge acts of terror are committed by Islamic radical insurgents. The British Government has banned the use of words such as ``Muslim'' and ``war on terror.'' Acts of terrorism are now referred to as ``criminal acts.'' The Islamic extremists who commit the attacks are being referred to as ``communities.'' Islamic terrorists can go ahead and continue the barrage of terror because proper Britain won't even acknowledge who they are. When did the great nation of Britain turn into the timid, politically sensitive, fearful country that is more concerned about hurting the feelings of terrorists than protecting their island? It's time for Britain to boldly name the enemy at the gate, to turn around and fight for their country, not hide behind niceties. Winston Churchill wasn't afraid to name and fight the Nazis when he said, ``We shall go to the end; we will defend our island whatever the cost will be; we will fight on the beaches; we will fight in the fields and on the streets. We will never surrender.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I asked a question tonight, whether or not the United States of America is becoming a colony. A colony is made up of people from one country owing allegiance to their home country, not the country that they're in. And a colony serves the purpose of supporting the home country and exploits the new land. And has this happened to the United States? Have people illegally entered the United States with the purpose of colonizing this country for the benefit of another nation? I think the question is a valid question when it comes to Mexico. We know that the previous President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, actually encouraged illegal entry of his citizens into the United States. His government provided maps and documents so that people could enter illegally into this land. At the border of Texas and Mexico on the Mexican side, you can find numerous markets where an individual can buy documents of identification that are sold so that people can use them when they come into the United States to pretend to be here legally. And when we talk about the issue of immigration and what to do with the people here in this country that are illegally here, we must ask the question, why did they choose to be here illegally as opposed to coming the legal way? The reason may be that many of the illegals don't want to become Americans. Of course this country has a great number of individuals who are legally here that want to be loyal to this country and do the proper thing according to this Nation, but there are many that are here illegally and they're here illegally on purpose. They pledge allegiance to another flag, many to the Mexican flag, not to the American flag. And that is the current problem with many illegals in this Nation; they want to be colonists, not citizens. Part of being an American means that individuals pledge loyalty, wherever they come from, to this Nation, not some other nation. Many of them living in America want to accept the benefits of being in this country, but they don't want to accept the conditions of being an American. They want to remain colonists, not Americans. They refuse to learn the language, they refuse to assimilate, and most importantly, they refuse to be loyal to this Nation. And the effects of the colonization of our land means that the money that these illegals make does not stay in this Nation. Like colonies in the past, the money is returned to their home country. Many statistics report that over $22 billion a year is sent back to Mexico in the form of money sent from this Nation, from Mexican citizens in this Nation returning their money to their home country. They are feeding the Mexican economy at the expense of the American economy. Since many of them deal in a cash economy, they don't pay taxes the way legals do and American citizens. In fact, there is an organized system in this Nation where money is shipped back to Mexico through a complicit alliance of the banking industry in this country. And many of them do not contribute to the social programs provided for Americans and legal immigrants. They don't pay into the health care system, the education, and many of them don't pay into Social Security, but they receive those benefits at a drain to the American economy. It sounds like colonization of this Nation; they reap the benefits without the responsibility of being American. And the American taxpayer is stuck with the bill. We have heard that illegals do contribute to the economy, that they pay their taxes, and we've heard the other extreme that they don't pay anything. If we're to believe the Heritage Foundation, they say that for every dollar that an illegal pays into the American tax system, they get in return from benefits $3. So yet that extra $2 the American taxpayer is caught with. And of course this has happened before in history. If we use the example of the African continent, the African nations were raided by the Europeans in the last several centuries. They became colonies of Europe. Those colonies ended up, the minerals, the diamonds, the ivory and the gold were all taken from those nations and returned to the mother countries; sent it back to Europe so their country, the mother country, could benefit and the colonies were bankrupt. The results are known; they left many of those African nations in ruins, and many of these nations are still struggling to recover because of the colonization of their nation. So, the United States, Mr. Speaker, should not be a colony of Mexico. Imperialism of Mexico is not welcomed in this Nation. And this country needs to get back to some basics of securing both of our borders, the northern and southern border. We should not grant amnesty to people who don't want to be Americans, and I'm referring to those illegals that are in the United States. We should strengthen requirements to enter this country. And we should end the good deal for illegals and the bad deal for American citizens and American legal immigrants. I suggest that the colonization by third world countries of the United States must end. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, news from the lawless southern border: Homeland Security is claiming illegal entry is decreasing. According to their reports, the number of illegals arrested on the Mexico-U.S. border has decreased almost 25 percent. Armed with these statistics, these bureaucrats are thus claiming fewer illegals are trying to sneak into the United States. Interesting enough, just last month the Homeland Security Secretary said, while he was lobbying for the now defeated Senate amnesty plan, that he cannot secure the U.S. borders. Now he claims illegal crossings are down because apprehensions on the border are down. That is like saying there are fewer cars on the road because the police are issuing fewer traffic tickets. The American people are not fooled by this statistical game. Rather than claiming these glowing statistics mean that all is well on the southern front, Homeland Security should stop issuing propaganda statements and give the border protectors the support, equipment, and manpower to protect the border from infiltration. Homeland Security must quit being delightfully ignorant of the truth and not claim border victory because it issues fewer traffic tickets. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to other congressional business, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Thursday, June 28, 2007. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 606 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 605.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Francis Scott Key is best known for being the author of our National Anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' During the second American revolution, the War of 1812, the British reinvaded the United States, captured Washington, DC, burned this building, the White House and most of this city. The English then set sail for nearby Baltimore and were determined to take the city, but Fort McHenry was blocking and protecting Baltimore Harbor. Key, a lawyer, had boldly gone on board a British ship to seek release of a captured United States citizen. The Royal Navy held both Key and his client and refused to release either until after the British naval attack on the fort was completed. During the night, the British bombarded the fort with hundreds of shells and rockets, but at ``dawn's early light,'' the American defenders still held the fort, refusing to surrender, and a massive 30 foot by 40 foot American flag still flew defiantly over Fort McHenry. The unsuccessful British sailed away. Francis Scott Key, upon seeing the flag, wrote our national anthem that was sung this past 4th of July throughout the prairies and plains of America. But, Mr. Speaker, Key also has a Texas connection. Before Sam Houston made his way to Texas, he served with Andrew Jackson in the Indian wars and was elected United States Congressman for Tennessee for two terms and served as Governor of Tennessee. After his governorship, Houston spent time in Washington, DC, during the 1830s advocating on behalf of the Cherokee Indians and denouncing the corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1832, Congressman William Stanbery from Ohio made slanderous accusations about Houston and the Cherokees on the floor of Congress. One morning, Houston was leaving a boarding house on Pennsylvania Avenue and saw Stanbery walking down the street. A confrontation occurred between the two men over Stanbery's statement. A street brawl resulted. Sam Houston thrashed and viciously beat Congressman Stanbery with his hickory walking cane for Stanbery's derogatory remarks on this House floor. Stanbery then pulled a pistol and put it to the chest of Houston, but the pistol misfired. Mr. Speaker, fate saved Sam Houston's life. The United States Congress ordered the arrest of Sam Houston, charging him with assault and demeaning a Member of Congress. Houston was tried before Congress in a joint session with the Supreme Court acting as judges. The trial lasted a month. Houston spent one full day on this House floor in boisterous oratory stating his positions, that he was defending his honor; Stanbery was the aggressor; and anyway, Stanbery deserved the severe caning. So what does Francis Scott Key have to do with any of this? Francis Scott Key was Sam Houston's defense lawyer. He did an admirable job in the defense of this later Texas hero, but after the trial was over, Houston was found guilty, publically reprimanded and ordered to pay a $500 fine. Houston refused to pay the fine and, rather than face more problems with Congress, left Washington that same year and began a new life and political career in Texas. And the rest, they say, is Texas history. General Sam Houston was the successful commander of the Texas Army during the Texas War of Independence from Mexico in 1836. After defeating Dictator Santa Anna on the marshy plains of San Jacinto, Houston became the first president of the Republic of Texas. After Texas was admitted to the United States in 1845, he was a United States Senator and then Governor of the State. Houston is the only person to serve as Governor and Member of Congress from two different States. Sam Houston's troubles with the legislative bodies continued, however. When Texas voted to leave the Union in 1861, the Governor, Houston, refused to take the oath to support the Confederacy. So the Texas legislature removed General Sam from the office of Governor. Too bad. Maybe if Francis Scott Key had been Sam Houston's lawyer before the Texas legislature, the outcome might have been different. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the unfair ``Broadcast Fairness Doctrine'' has reappeared. It is an attempt by the feds to force radio stations to be fair and balanced by forcing broadcasters to air opposing views of public importance. Sounds good, but who's going to determine what fair is, the Federal fair police? Are we going to let a bunch of Potomac River bureaucrats determine if a radio station in Tomball, Texas is being fair when it discusses politics? Sounds like government control of speech to me. And fair means different things to different folks. It's too subjective a word for us to even agree on. The Fairness Doctrine would not even promote public discourse. It would, in fact, force radio broadcasters to do away with controversy and maybe go to airing 24-hour music like Willie Nelson's greatest hits. Oops. Someone here might say Willie's not fair and balanced. Anyway, the Constitution is clear. Congress, that's us, shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. You notice, it doesn't guarantee fair speech. Our forefathers wrote that first amendment to prevent government control of our free speech. So this Fairness Doctrine is neither fair speech, free speech or constitutional speech. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, a new inductee in the Judges Hall of Shame is Judge Roy Pearson of Washington, DC. It seems that Judge Pearson suffers from the arrogant ailment known as ``black robe disease.'' But instead of issuing a bad ruling, Pearson filed an absurd lawsuit. Claiming his dry cleaners did not live up to their claim of ``satisfaction guaranteed'' when a pair of his pants were lost, Pearson decided to sue them for $54 million. The part of the story that makes Pearson even more despicable is that the dry cleaners did find his pants two days later and gave him $150 for his trouble. Pearson took the money all right, but he didn't want his pants back. At the trial, the judge admonished Pearson, who represented himself, for being completely unprepared in his own case. On Monday, Judge Pearson got a taste of his own medicine when the trial judge not only dismissed the case against the cleaners, but is also making Pearson pay the court costs and $100,000 attorney fees to the immigrant owners. The cleaners lost his pants, but now he is losing his shirt, as it ought to be. Shame on Judge Roy Pearson for his abuse of our legal system. Courts work to right actual wrongs, not award money to people who are just too big for their britches. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Border Patrol agents report that illegals and drug smugglers are entering the United States through our national forests. They are setting forest fires at the border, at patrol stands and watch towers, attempting to smoke out the agents and divert their attention from the illegal crossings. National forest firefighters have reported seeing illegals and drug smugglers move right on through fires as the firefighters try to put out the fires. Once assaulted with rocks, cars, guns, now agents must worry about fires. And these arsonist illegals are not just stopping at setting those fires. Reports indicate some illegals have engaged in throwing Molotov cocktails--a crude bomb made from gasoline--at our agents. The border war has escalated. These new invaders are not the migrants in search of a better life, they are violent land burners who will do anything to invade the United States, including assaulting U.S. border agents. There is a wildfire of illegal crossings at the border, and the Potomac amnesty-for-all crowd is fiddling the violin of blissful ignorance while the border burns. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it is written, ``Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or bridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.'' Of course, this is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And Mr. Speaker, it is first because, without these first principles, the rest of the following amendments are meaningless. These are rights that Americans take very seriously, particularly in regard to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There are some in Washington, D.C., however, that feel if someone is saying something they don't like, they ignore this freedom of the right to speak and try to control speech. This is where the so-called Fairness Doctrine comes into play. In the early 1940s, the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, established the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It was instituted in an attempt to ensure that all broadcast station coverage of controversial issues be fair and balanced. This mainly applied to radio stations. This means allowing equal time for each side on an issue. If a radio station wanted to talk about the need to secure the borders, they would have to grant the same amount of time to individuals who wanted open borders. The Fairness Doctrine was considered by many journalists a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. And I agree with this assertion. It even led many journalists to avoid reporting on controversial issues to protect themselves from having to report on the other side of the issue. This led to the opposite effect of the doctrine that the FCC had intended. It actually stifled free speech. So, by 1987, the FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine, realizing the gross error in their ways in total disregard for the freedom of speech. There have been several attempts by speech-control advocates to reenact the Fairness Doctrine, and all of these attempts have continued to fail. But this decision still does not sit well with many in Washington, D.C., who feel that broadcast talk radio is one-sided. What it really means is that talk radio largely boasts conservative views and not liberal viewpoints. Liberal radio doesn't go over well with Americans, and these stations generally fail financially and with the American listeners. So the critics of conservative radio have started a movement to eliminate conservative talk radio unless equal time is allowed for liberal viewpoints. Basically, they want a reinstatement of the unfair Fairness Doctrine. But what the critics may really be irate about deals more with illegal immigration than it does with talk radio, because that is the current controversial issue on talk radio stations. Since their voices are so rarely heard in Congress, the American public has come to express their opinions by talk radio, especially on this issue of illegal immigration. The backroom, closed-door meetings the Senate has had to reach a deal on amnesty that the American public certainly doesn't want has encouraged talk radio shows to inform the public of this absurd nonsense of amnesty. Talk radio has been one of the only vehicles that has kept the public informed about the ``give America away'' amnesty program and the political pandering and preference policies for illegals that the Senate bill is advocating. So because the amnesty crowd doesn't like what they hear on the radio, they want the Federal Government to control this speech by forcing radio stations to give them free air time. If the liberals don't like talk radio, it is patently unfair to force radio stations to pay for and give away air time to them. You see, liberals can't make their case on their own radio station because no one listens to them. So, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution protects free speech, not equal speech. Congress is to make no law abridging the freedom of speech whether we like the speech or not. It's simple, Mr. Speaker, speech is to be free, not fair. Fair is too subjective a word. Our grandfathers guaranteed us free speech, not fair speech, and there is a big difference. Congress is to stay out of the controlling of speech business because it says so in the U.S. Constitution. Our ancestors wrote the First Amendment mainly to protect two types of speech, political speech and religious speech. Those are the most controversial of all types of speech and the most important types of speech. That's why they are protected in our Constitution. By trying to regulate what is said on the airways, the Federal Government and the speech police are speaking out of line. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to delays in air travel coming back from my Congressional district yesterday, I was one of six Members on a flight that was delayed by several hours in arriving to Washington, DC. I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, June 25, 2007. Had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall votes Nos. 549 and 550.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, new Colorado State law requires local law enforcement agencies to report illegals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities when those individuals are jailed for crimes. Then the Feds are to deport these criminals back to their countries after they serve their sentences, but there is a problem. The Federal Government doesn't deport these criminals. According to a Colorado newspaper, 37 out of every 38 illegals that are convicted and are reported to ICE for deportation are just released back on the streets of those towns. What does this mean for homeland security, for citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants? It means criminal illegals, instead of being sent home by Uncle Sam, are set free to roam our communities, to continue to steal, rob and hurt people. Colorado police are doing their job, but, once again, when it's time to ante into the pot, the Federal Government folds its hand. Instead of our Government trying to figure out ways to keep illegals in the United States with these amnesty giveaway plans, it ought to figure out ways to deport criminal illegals back to where they came from. Once again, our Government is missing in action. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this bill increases funding in the Foreign Operations bill to foreign countries almost at 10 percent. And as already stated, most Americans did not get a 10 percent increase in their income last year, but yet we are going to spend money in foreign countries. And much of this money is waste, total waste that Americans should not be funding at all. It gives money also to nations that constantly and consistently vote against us in the United Nations. It's important to note, however, none of this funding decrease will affect aid to our strongest ally to the Middle East, Israel; money that is well spent for the security of not only Israel, but the United States. So, increasing funding in this Foreign Operations bill is not acceptable. All we're doing in the gentleman from Ohio's amendment is to put in it at last year's level, and that's a good idea.