Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Lonestar Voice this week comes from Geoffrey Brown of Baytown, Texas. Here is what he has to say: ``We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border. They don't get paid enough wages. They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do. They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language. They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day. No, I'm not talking about illegals; I'm talking about our troops. Doesn't it seem strange that the (politicians) are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and have threatened to defund them?'' Geoffrey Brown echoes the sentiments of many other Americans who wonder why so many people in Washington show more concern for illegals who pledge allegiance to other countries than they do our U.S. troops fighting in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. Supporting the American military and our veterans is more important than expensive giveaway programs to illegals. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment with me. I'll be brief because I don't think many Members here need to be convinced that we need our Government agencies to enforce the laws we give them and that they aren't arbitrary. Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the State Department to discontinue the issuance of visas to nations who fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered removed by our Government. Unfortunately, this step by our Government has never been taken. Why? The gentleman from Colorado and I joined on a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ask this very question. The chart I have here indicates the response we received and I quote: Department of Homeland Security Response: ``While visa sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act may be an effective tool in obtaining repatriation cooperation, the severity that makes them potentially effective also has the potential to negatively impact other U.S. foreign relations objectives if not used judiciously. When considering the use of 243(d) sanctions, DHS must consider the potential repercussions to U.S. foreign policy. Because the United States is pursuing a number of initiatives with China on foreign policy issues, implementing Section 243(d) sanctions could have counterproductive effects.''--Donald H. Kent, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 10, 2007. Mr. Chairman, how this reads to me is that our trade with nations like China is more important than providing for the safety of the American people. Many of the people who we are trying to remove are hardened criminals, violent felons that we want off our streets. Because of two recent Supreme Court decisions, our government is limited in the length of time we can hold them in our jails while working to remove them. If we can't remove them in 6 months, they are to be set free. Now how many are we talking about here? As this chart shows, here are the top offending countries and the number roaming America: TABLE 14.--BREAKDOWN IN THE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM COUNTRIES THAT

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and felony court judge in Texas, I tried a lot of cases where the victims of homicide were peace officers. Like any victim, these officers came from all ages and all races. The murder of a peace officer is one of the most serious crimes that can occur in any community. Unlike other victims, Mr. Chairman, peace officers carry the daily burden of protecting their communities from crime, everything from petty theft to the most violent and vicious of crimes. Every day these defenders of our cities put their lives on the line. They have asked to be in harm's way, and then when one is killed in the line of duty, their loss is deeply felt by the entire community. There are cases, however, when peace officers are killed and their killers happen to be immigrants from foreign countries, some legal immigrants, some illegal. And there are many cases where the home countries of these immigrants refuse to send them back to the United States to face their charges once they are requested to be extradited to the United States from their home country. In 2002, a Los Angeles County sheriff was murdered by a Mexican citizen who was illegally in the country. However, the Mexican government refused for 5 years to extradite him to the United States to stand trial, and it only occurred this January when the charge was reduced. The same occurred in Denver in 2005 when a police officer by the name of Donnie Young was murdered, and only after the charges were reduced was the killer extradited back to this country. Killing police officers seems to also be a popular pastime for a few immigrants in Texas. In my hometown, a Houston police officer by the name of Rodney Johnson was shot four times and killed by an illegal immigrant in September of 2006. In fact, the last three law enforcement officers shot in Harris County, Texas, were shot by people who were illegally here in the United States. Fortunately, each of these killers were captured before they fled to their home country, and they will have their day in court. But what about the ones that don't get caught and flee to some other country? This problem is only increasing in States that border Mexico, where travel across the border is easy; and now violent drug cartels rule the area and certainly have no qualms about shooting at American peace officer. So this country should not be spending money toward admitting immigrants to the United States from any country that refuses to allow the United States to try police killers by harboring those killers in their country. I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me, along with the Fraternal Order of Police that has endorsed this amendment, to support limiting funds in this bill to be used for issuing visas to nationals or citizens of countries that have notified our State Department of their refusal to extradite to the United States an individual indicted for killing a peace officer in this country. We owe this to our peace officers and their families.

Mr. POE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the chairman's concerns about this amendment, but it will be an effort to, of course, get those people back in the United States who are charged with the specific crime of killing a peace officer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in 1984, President Reagan signed the 21 minimum drinking age into law, saying ``This problem is bigger than the individual States. It's a grave national problem, and it touches all our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power. I'm convinced that it will help persuade State legislators to act in the national interest to save our children's lives, by raising the drinking age to 21 across the country.'' Now, there are some that are advocating--lowering the drinking age back to 18. These people are unfortunately choosing what is easy over what is right and what is effective. It would be easy to allow 18 to 20 year olds to drink, but we would pay for it with lives. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, looked at 49 high-quality, peer-reviewed studies of places that changed their drinking age and found conclusively that moving the drinking age up to 21 decreases alcohol-involved crash fatalities by 16 percent and lowering it increases fatalities by 10 percent. New Zealand is a good example of this. In 1999, New Zealand lowered its drinking age from 20 to 18. Not only did the alcohol-involved crash rate increase among 18 and 19 year olds, but also among 15 to 17 year olds. It is absurd to think that this would not happen in the United States were we to take the easy path. It would be easy to think that teaching young people to drink would increase responsible drinking habits, but what is easy isn't what is true. Most European countries with lower drinking ages have not only higher drinking rates, but higher binge drinking and intoxication rates. Several of these countries, like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada, are considering increasing their drinking ages because the 21 minimum drinking age is so effective. It would be easy to assume that 18 to 20 year olds could drink safely, but in truth, all underage drinking is unsafe drinking. Brain research shows us that the brain continues to develop into the early twenties. The part that controls reasoning and cognitive ability is the last to mature and thus the most vulnerable to damage. The part of the brain responsible for new memories is noticeably smaller in youth that abuse alcohol. Alcohol use in the teen years also is associated with decreased brain functioning, memory, movement, and attention, and these changes may be permanent. These and many more reasons are why a host of experts, including the CDC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, General Accounting Office, Institute of Medicine, Surgeon General, National Institute of Health, and more, support the 21 minimum drinking age. It is necessary for us as legislators, parents, and responsible citizens to take the hard path and prevent our young people from accessing alcohol--adults facilitate, by selling, giving, providing, or allowing youth access to alcohol, almost all underage drinking. It is necessary to set limits, not open the liquor cabinets. And it is necessary for us as leaders to ignore those who think you can try the same experiment twice and get less fatal results. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, firefighters are a special brand of people. When others are fleeing burning buildings, firefighters suit up and charge head first into the searing infernos and blackening smoke, not stopping until that beast is tamed. They go where others fear to tread. In Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday night, firefighters were called to a blaze at a local furniture store. As they were trained to do, they entered the engulfed building. Moments later, without warning, the roof of the furniture store collapsed, trapping and killing nine firefighters. Last night, at 7:00 p.m., 24 hours after the tragedy, at 30,000-plus fire stations across the plains of America, firefighters stood in reverent silence for their brothers. This devastation in Charleston is the single greatest sacrifice of American firefighters since 343 of them were killed on September 11. This Nation's firefighters are ordinary citizens armed with extraordinary bravery and dedication to the public. When danger occurs, most run from the danger, but America's firefighters are not like most. They run to the danger. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, before I came to Congress, I had a career in public service in Texas, first as a prosecutor for 8 years. I was a chief felony prosecutor and tried felony cases in Houston, Texas. And then I assumed the bench for 22 years and tried felony criminal cases and heard over 25,000 felony cases. And I say that to say during that time, both as a prosecutor and as a judge, I heard cases where peace officers were the victims of crime and I heard cases where peace officers were accused of criminal conduct against other individuals, people they had arrested. And I want to talk about a situation that has occurred down to the Texas-Mexico border involving a Border Patrol agent by the name of David Sipes. David Sipes was a Border Patrol agent patrolling the south Texas area, and he came in contact with a coyote. A coyote is a phrase we use in the vernacular for a person who is a smuggler of human beings into the United States. He makes money off of the plight of people who want to be in the United States for economic reasons. David Sipes arrested a coyote by the name of Jose Guevara, who resisted arrest. There was a fight that ensued and David Sipes hit Jose Guevara in the back of the head when he resisted arrest and he was charged with smuggling people into the United States. But what happened was, the U.S. Attorney's Office, rather than prosecute the human smuggler, they decided to prosecute the Border Patrol agent for using too much force in arresting the coyote and charged him with civil rights violations against the illegal in this country smuggling other human beings. David Sipes was tried for that offense. This all occurred back in April 2000. He was tried for that offense, civil rights violations, and the U.S. Attorney's Office vigorously and relentlessly prosecuted him for this so-called offense. But after the trial it turned out, after he was convicted of the civil rights violation, that the U.S. Attorney's Office hid evidence from David Sipes and his lawyer. So the district judge ordered a new trial because the U.S. Attorney's Office cannot hide evidence in a criminal case, but they did so against this Border Patrol agent. Why? We don't know, but they did. So the district judge ordered the case to be retried. But before it could be retried, the U.S. Attorney's Office appealed the judge's decision, and the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial judge that David Sipes was entitled to a new trial and the Federal Government's appeal was thrown out and this year David Sipes was retried. The jury heard all of the evidence, evidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office hid from the jury when it was first tried, and in less than an hour David Sipes was found not guilty, and properly so. The evidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office hid from the jury, well, first of all they never told the jury that the U.S. Attorney's Office gave this drug smuggler travel expenses so he could go back and forth to Mexico, that they gave him witness fees, that they gave him free telephone access, that they gave him a border crossing permit, that they gave him a U.S. Social Security card, and they even gave him a Texas driver's license. But the biggest thing that the jury never heard about, besides all these benefits, back room deals he was given, it turns out that this human smuggler brought in another load of humans into the United States and the jury never heard about the second situation. Why does our U.S. Attorney's Office hide this type of evidence from a jury? We are going to find out why, Madam Speaker. Not only that, but Guevara was given $80,000 by our United States Government when he threatened to sue our government for his so-called illegal arrest, and reports are that he has gone back to Mexico and bought himself a ranch down there with American taxpayer money. Madam Speaker, just last week David Sipes asked to receive back pay. Of course, our Federal Government fought that, too, but he received back pay for the 6 or 7 years that he was out of service with the Border Patrol. But his life was destroyed. His wife divorced him because of this. He went bankrupt. He is destitute and he lives with his original trial lawyer. All of this because our Federal Government fought every inch of the way to prosecute a Border Patrol agent for arresting a criminal on our border smuggling human beings instead of prosecuting a human smuggler, a coyote. Our government had the choice, prosecute border agent or prosecute human smuggler, and our government chose poorly, and they prosecuted a Border Patrol agent. Of course we all know this isn't the end of the story because with agents Ramos and Compean the same situation has occurred. But, Madam Speaker, justice is the one thing we should always find. And finally, after 7 years, a jury heard all of the evidence in this particular case and David Sipes was vindicated and our government chose the wrong side. We are going to follow this case and other cases and see why the government has gone wild about prosecuting Border Patrol agents. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in the days of the recent past, when a child was sexually assaulted, the criminal justice system continued to victimize the child, because the victim was bounced all over town relating the story to numerous strangers. Sometimes a child, when interviewed at the police station, actually came in direct contact with the offender. Also, the child could wait for hours in the same county emergency rooms as other victims of stabbings, car wrecks and overdoses. But times have changed. There are over 680 child advocacy centers in the United States, including one in Houston, where victims go when assaulted. At the center are trained police, therapists, doctors and lawyers that are experts in dealing with children. Here the child is helped before the trial, during the trial, and, yes, after trial. The National Children's Alliance, led by Nancy Chandler, is the umbrella organization that helps these 600-plus centers throughout the Nation. All these child crusaders are in Washington this week working to make our land safer for kids. America is grateful to these members of the victims' posse that help protect our greatest resource, children. After all, it shouldn't hurt to be a kid in the United States. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the ``Grand Bargain'' is what people are calling the new inclusive, comprehensive give-America-away immigration bill. Since it got nowhere in the Senate last week, Senators have returned to the back room and behind closed doors to come up with a ``Greater Grand Bargain'' than before. In other words, throw in something for the left, more family reunification for illegals, and something for the right, more border security promises, and this all done in an effort to get a deal, any deal, passed quickly. Of course, the underlying principle of this deal is if you are here illegally, you're going to get to stay. Now, smart people on the left and the right say this is not amnesty. Of course they say it's not amnesty because these smart people know Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty. So they call it a reform. Mr. Speaker, if 12 to 20 million people are on our land illegally, and shall I speak politically incorrect and call it trespassing, and if they pay some kickback fees to Uncle Sam but get to stay on our land, it's still amnesty. So let's be honest. The new ``Greater Grand Bargain'' is a bargain for illegals, but a costly, bad deal for Americans. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, ``genocide'' is a fancy term for state- sponsored murder or extermination of a group of people. And that is exactly what President Ahmadenijad of Iran is trying to incite against the state of Israel. The president of Iran has a one-size-fits-all foreign policy. His response, Madam Speaker, to all conflicts in the Middle East is to ``get rid of Israel.'' Ironically, while claiming that the Holocaust never happened, Ahmadenijad regularly pontificates on goals that could easily have been taken right out of the Nazi playbook of the 1930s and 40s. ``The real cure,'' he has said, ``for the (Lebanon) conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.'' And not only does he propose the ``elimination'' of the entire state of Israel, he definitively predicts that end. Israel, he said, ``will be gone, definitely.'' And, Madam Speaker, he predicts revenge against the West for standing by its greatest ally in the Middle East, saying that we ``will not see any result but the hatred of the people.'' Well, it should come as no surprise to the devil of the desert, Mr. Ahmadenijad, that the United States will not leave one of its greatest allies alone in the desert. We in America have the courage, Madam Speaker, to call Ahmadenijad a threat to world peace and an outlaw to Israel. I believe in the freedom of speech, Madam Speaker. It is one of the foundations of democracy. But speech by a head of state that urges the annihilation of an entire nation mocks and dishonors the very notion of free speech, and it is the prelude to open aggression. And that is why I have cosponsored this resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad with violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. He must be held accountable for his actions. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, when Ms. USA recently appeared in Mexico City, she was repeatedly booed every time she was onstage. Apparently, the host and hostess and the ``Politically Correct Police'' missed it or just ignored it. The pro-amnesty crowd is moving right along in its efforts to convince the American public that illegal immigration exists because people would do anything to be an American; interesting logic considering recent events. But I've never understood the logic in rewarding 12 to 20 million law breakers with amnesty for any reason. In America, we seem to do things a little bit different. We cheer for our country. We wave our flag. We invest in our country, and we respect our neighbors. And by respecting neighbors, I don't mean we invade somebody else's country, demand benefits and protest brazenly in the streets waving foreign flags. And where I come from, we never boo a lady. The booing incident of Americans doesn't come as a big shock to most of us. It has happened before in U.S.-Mexico sporting events. The Mexican team and the Mexican fans booed the U.S. players. It is the disappointment in the lack of reaction from some of our leaders to realize that they are not welcoming future Americans into our country with their amnesty giveaway; they are just giving away the country. A pathway to citizenship, or earned citizenship, or any other giveaway program they want to call it only works if people really want to become Americans. If you want to be an American, then there are some responsibilities to that. You just don't get to take all you can and leave when you are done. I don't agree that this amnesty nonsense is what's best for America, and I know, without a doubt, that the uncontrolled border is a natural disaster. Sure, it's great for Mexico. Their struggling economy depends on our citizens; or rather, their citizens' loyalty to their country, not loyalty to our country. But the argument is that we have to allow those living in our country illegally the opportunity to come out of the shadows and be a part of our country and our culture. That simply is not going to happen, because their loyalty lies with their former nation. And an amnesty giveaway is going to legalize their loyalty to their home country, not make them Americans. Mexico and other countries promote illegal immigration to the United States with one understanding: You send your money back home to Mexico. And America is not home. Billions headed south last year to Mexico alone. Remittances from the United States were the second highest revenue for Mexico, right behind the sale of crude oil, beating out tourism. So when the United States gets booed, people that don't understand this are a bit taken aback. Is it irony or arrogance? Most people don't bite the hands that feed them, especially when you have them eating out of your hand. The administration recently said, ``Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill this bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick out one little aspect of it.'' Although I respect the President greatly, I respectfully suggest he is in error. We cannot accept the narrow slice or the whole amnesty pie. We are not that much of a glutton for this pie in the sky. Americans deserve better. They deserve real immigration reform that secures the borders with the utmost of urgency and an end to political preference policy for illegals, a policy that discriminates against American citizens and legal immigrants. We need to end employment opportunities and social benefits intended and entitled to Americans and have legislation that puts the needs and benefits of Americans first. Kowtowing to Mexico, the country that takes and takes from America but booed Ms. USA off the stage, is exactly what's wrong with this new Senate amnesty bill and this administration's position. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the tiny principality of Liechtenstein has survived and thrived as an independent and sovereign nation for over 200 years, ever since Napoleon dissolved the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. And I rise today in support of a resolution commemorating their independence and their friendship toward the United States. Like my home state of Texas, Liechtenstein has worked hard to diversify its economy, keeping its important agricultural markets in- tact while embracing the industrial and financial services sectors, clearly for its immeasurable good. Small in territory, Liechtenstein boasts an unemployment rate of only 1.3 percent and some of the lowest tax rates in Europe. Every day, the country's population swells to double its normal size, as citizens from the surrounding countries of Austria, Switzerland and Germany join the hardworking natives at work. And those that live and work in Liechtenstein enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. Liechtenstein is also, of course, a great friend to the United States and to democracy. I have invited the Ambassador of Liechtenstein, Ms. Fristche, to visit my district and observe for herself the pride Texans have in their own country and of course, the unique balance of our own economy--the rice fields planted right up against the oil refineries. I hope she takes me up on the offer. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Theodore Otto Herman Hill--with a nickname of ``Thunderhead'' because of his fiery red hair--was my mom's father. He was born in Texas in 1899 and his grandparents were early Texas settlers from Germany. Theodore was a cotton farmer, raised bees, and raised cattle. He married young and had three daughters that he called ``the boys'' who were expected to help him pick cotton. Papa, as we called him, was a hunter, a taxidermist and a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. He found on his land hundreds of Apache and Comanche arrowheads that he organized, and his collection will soon be turned over to the Texas Ranger Museum. He could tell the type of tree by looking at the bark or observing the leaves. He predicted the weather by watching the animals. One afternoon in the 1950s while he was laying asphalt as a foreman of a work crew for the Texas Highway Department, a drunk driver broke through the barricade and killed my grandfather. I was 5 years old. My grandmother lived another 50 years after his death. What I know of my grandfather makes me proud of my heritage. This Father's Day we remember our fathers and grandfathers and know that a lot of good men have made us who we are today. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, binge drinking is the silent health epidemic attacking America's underage college students. It is defined as five consecutive drinks for men and four consecutive drinks for women. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, 43 percent of college students state they are binge drinkers. Parents and college communities are rightfully concerned. However, some universities ignore the problem and, in fact, are complicit in this drinking binge. Middlebury College in Vermont claims to have the cure for binge drinking: lower the minimum drinking age from 21 to 18. The former college president proposes that lowering the drinking age will encourage students to drink responsibly. That is an irresponsible statement. This will only encourage younger people to get drunk. The answer lies in admitting the problem, enforcing underage drinking laws, and educating students on the effect of binge drinking. Lowering the minimum drinking age just adds fuel to the epidemic and gives students a legal license to drink. Colleges cannot consent to the binge drinking by ignoring the problem and making outlandish statements. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, just in summary, we are requiring people who fly into the United States to have passports. Even people from Mexico who fly into the United States will have to have passports. And when we fly to Mexico or Canada, we have to have passports. The same is true of people coming in by sea. And now it is appropriate that we have that same recommendation for those people who travel into the United States by land. That is why I recommend and ask for the adoption of this amendment, that the universal document for entry into another nation be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will help reduce the lengthy delays consumers are facing when applying for passports, while at the same time strengthening security at our borders. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated that the U.S. Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop and implement a plan to require all U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport or some other document when entering the United States, as of January 1, 2008. For many years United States citizens and citizens from other countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a passport to enter the United States. They were admitted by stating verbally that they were from a country that didn't require passports or by presenting a wide variety of less secure documentation, including up to 5,000 documents that our border agents must be versed in. The 9/11 Commission in their findings highlighted ``for terrorists travel documents are as important as weapons. . . . In their travels terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit documents, and they study and exploit America's vulnerabilities.'' The 9/11 Commission rightfully recommended we end the practice of traveling without passports. I am glad Congress took action on that recommendation. However, here we are 2\1/2\ years later, and it seems we are still going further and further away from putting this policy in place due to the bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. It seems bureaucrats implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative continue to spend large amounts of time and money to come up with other ``alternative documents to passports'' to comply with this law. The answer is why? We have a secure document, the passport, that has been implemented and is being used. But the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, even though they continue to say the passport is the ``gold standard'' for identity and citizenship documents because of its security, have come up with all different types of forms and documents that they are studying. All of these documents are unproven. They are called the Pass card, the BCC card, the SENTRI card, the Nexus card, the Fast card. And we are spending taxpayer money experimenting on these, while not implementing the proven document like the passport. So this bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use and implement only passports and quit spending money on documents that are unproven. And that is the purpose of this amendment: to spend money on passports only. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman, I understand his concerns, but the problem is exactly as he stated. There are too many documents to allow people to travel back and forth across U.S. borders. The United States discriminates against citizens from other nations because we require all those people that enter the United States to have a passport. Because of the different special interest groups that have thwarted the implementation of passports by having other types of documents, those documents are unproven. In fact, Homeland Security is still studying those, which means they are spending money on trying to come up with various systems. So rather than have three or four or five systems, I think it is important that we have one system, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. And that passport system is the one that is the most foolproof. It will take time to implement, but these other systems haven't been implemented at all. So the purpose of this is to make sure that we are on the same page: Require a simple document, a passport document, one that I have here; one that is faster than trying to examine numerous documents; one that you can, as we say, slide and glide by coming across the border. It won't take any more time. In fact, it will take less time than some of these other unsecured documents. So with that, I ask the approval of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, North Carolina District Attorney Michael Nifong finds himself the accused and not the accuser this week. It seems his overzealous desire to make headlines by appealing to political pandering and making false allegations against three innocent Duke University lacrosse players has landed him in trouble. The State Bar Association charged Nifong with making outlandish prejudicial public comments against the players and hiding evidence, and they want him disbarred. Independent special prosecutors have found the sexual assault charges against the players to be unfounded, but Prosecutor Nifong tried to put them in jail anyway. The mere accusation of sexual assault, even when false, can ruin an individual. The role of the prosecutor is to seek, not convictions. Rouge D.A. Nifong is yet another example of a prosecutor gone wild and an abuser of power. If the allegations against him are true, he joins the wall of shame and should never be allowed near the courthouse again, except maybe as a defendant. Because justice is the one thing we should always find. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, part of our process in this country as a Republic and one reason we broke away from a monarchy was because of the fact that Americans, by nature, want things in the public view. Back in the days of the king, the king made all of the decisions and he made them based on any reason or lack of reason the king wished. Americans want their government to be public. That's why this House meets in public instead of in a back room someplace, because when you meet in back rooms, things seem to happen that are not in the favor or the benefit of the public or the American people. And in this whole appropriations process, the American public is watching us and we are being asked to appropriate billions of dollars for different projects, appropriations bills; but yet we don't know where the money is going. Now, most Americans probably would find that difficult to understand. I find that difficult to understand. Why you would ever appropriate taxpayer money, set it out here in some fund, you can call it a slush fund or a sludge fund it makes no difference. We don't know where the money is going. We are being told trust us, we are the government; we will decide later how to spend your money. Trust us. And how is that decision going to be made? It is going to be made really by one person and his staff, a good person no doubt, but will that decision be made upon partisan politics, how these false, fake, secret earmarks are going to be determined? Will it be based upon longevity in the House? Will it be based upon where a person happens to live in the United States? Will it be based upon other factors that are subjective as opposed to objective? Who knows. We don't know because we don't know, first of all, where the money is going and how those decisions will be made. But we are all asked in this House, including those on the other side, to write a letter and ask for one earmark, and then that letter will be reviewed by the staff. And the staff will meet with the one Member of Congress and the decision will be made whether to grant or not grant that earmark. It seems to me that one person should not have that ability, that authority, that power. It goes back to the phrase from Orwell's ``Animal Farm'' that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And this is probably one of those examples. So why not be open about it? Why not be democratic about it and air those public earmarks in the public sector. Let's argue and debate them on the House floor. Let's vote them up, let's vote them down, but let the American people see exactly what those earmarks are and then they can see where we stand and see how we vote as 435 as opposed to one person. So deals made in back rooms are not good deals for the American public. All we are asking in this legislative body is that we take the taxpayers' money and we tell them up front where that money is going to be spent before we take it away from the taxpayers and say trust us, we are from the Federal Government, we are here to help you. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Judge Carter.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in my other life, before coming to Congress, I spent 22 years on the criminal court bench in Houston, Texas, trying all kinds of criminals. During that experience, I learned a lot about the way the world really is. It is unfortunate that, in the society we live in, the Immigration Service cannot protect the United States as far as interior enforcement goes. There aren't enough interior enforcement agents to track down people who are illegally in the system. When I say ``in the system,'' I am talking about the criminal justice system. What happens too often is a person is arrested for a crime. He is put in jail. The person is illegally in the United States, but nobody knows about that. They are sentenced to some term in jail or in prison. They get out, and they continue to stay in the United States illegally. That continues to be a problem, especially in big jurisdictions like Houston, Texas, where I am from. They are committing more crimes, yes. The last three peace officers in the City of Houston that have been shot, Mr. Speaker, were all shot by people illegally in the United States. Two of those individuals had been arrested several times and yet kept being released. The problem breaks down in the local jails. It needs to be clear that this program, the 287(g) program that is being funded and that we are asking more funds to be appropriated for, is voluntary. Cities are not required to participate. Sanctuary cities, and we know what cities they are, that harbor illegals, they won't participate. They don't have to participate. But not all cities in the United States are sanctuary cities. Some cities want to help clean up the crime problem in their neighborhoods. One way they can do it is to receive Federal funds, going to local law enforcement, who know best about policing and who the people are in the area and what criminals they are; to track those individuals illegally in the country and make sure they are legally deported back where they came from. We find that it works, and it works very well. For example, in local jails, sheriffs use the 287(g) program to find out who foreign gang members are, like the MS-13 gang members. Once they are in custody, they can determine who those individuals are, that they are illegally in the United States, and, as soon as they are released from jail, which happens to all of them, rather than be released back on the streets of our cities, they will be deported back where they came from. Now that doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. We have ``catch and release'' of illegals in our county jail system. Then we got to go catch them again and then try to have them deported after some crime is committed. So I think it is wise to use the 750,000 local peace officers in the United States, those peace officers that want to participate in the 287(g) program, train them with Federal funds and allow them to police their own jails and their neighborhoods so that people who are convicted of criminal conduct, that are illegally in the United States, once they are captured, we can deport them rather than continue to release them back on our streets. So I want to commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for proposing this important amendment asking for more funds for local law enforcement to do their job. Obviously, the Federal Government cannot, has not done its job in protecting interior enforcement, and I think it is a wise use of money to allow local law enforcement to do so.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support border security, but for some reason, some political pandering pundits in Washington, D.C., want to pursue an unwise, open house amnesty policy before dealing with the real first important issue of national security. It's an issue of trust. I don't think Americans believe our government will really ever secure the border, no matter how many empty promises are made. The reason is too many special interest groups want lax border enforcement for their own political agenda. Those who want cheap plantation labor and those who want greater political power seem to want the border laws we have ignored. The motives appear to always be about money or power. However, our government would do well to assume its constitutional responsibility to protect America. The government has the ability, but not the will, to protect the border. Congress needs to provide adequate resources for border security. The government has the responsibility then to enforce the law and not give in to special interest groups. Then we can deal with the people that are here illegally after the government proves it has the will to secure our homeland. And that's just the way it is.