Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Tynesha Stewart, a 19-year-old freshman at Texas A&M, was looking forward to spring break and coming home to Houston to visit with her mother. There was one problem with coming home, however. Her possessive ex- boyfriend Timothy Shepherd would not leave her alone. Tynesha knew that he would contact her, even though she had repeatedly told him she wanted to move on. He and his male ego refused to accept this. On March 15, Tynesha made one final attempt to cut the ties with this harasser. She told him that she was seeing someone else and that it was over. Shepherd decided if he could not have her, no one would, and he strangled this young college student. This was not the end of his barbaric acts. He needed to get rid of her body, so he dismembered Tynesha and then he barbecued her on his apartment patio grill. The burning of her body took 2 full days. Shepherd did all this to the person he claimed he loved. Timothy Shepherd has been charged with murder for his grisly crimes. The people of Texas will properly decide what to do with this barbecue killer. Love is not harassment, control, or abuse. You never hurt someone you claim you love. And if you do, woe to you, because justice will rule the day. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is the chief law enforcement officer in this Nation. He is the most powerful prosecutor in America. As such, his credibility is based on his word. He must never deceive, mislead or misstate. There have been two different accounts by his office about the firings of some U.S. Attorneys. Gonzalez says he never has discussed the firings, but secret memos show a meeting to discuss such was held in his very office where he was present. Both statements cannot be true. His word is tarnished. The issue is not whether the administration can fire U.S. Attorneys. It can do so for almost any reason under the law. Madam Speaker, growing up, my grandmother was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. Her word was the law. I never doubted what she said. I respected her because she was always bluntly truthful. If she had told me it was raining in my house, I would have rushed home and started putting plastic over the furniture, because she never misled or misstated the truth. This Nation deserves better than to have an Attorney General who cannot be forthright with Congress and misleads the citizens he has been sworn to protect. He has a credibility issue. His word should be as bluntly truthful as my grandmother's. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, today we vote on the ``Iraq surrender bill.'' Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time, no matter the situation. We vote to retreat even if it means defeat. We vote to quit while our troops are in the field. And we vote for peace at any price. This bill will put American troops at risk. And for some odd reason, this emergency Iraqi bill is loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war. One provision is to give $3 billion to farmers hurt by bad weather, like my rice farmers in southeast Texas that were devastated by Hurricane Rita. But I will not barter my position. I will not betray our troops for 30 pieces of silver or $3 billion of squealing pork. The troops in Iraq need our total commitment, not total defeatism. Ronald Reagan put it best, ``Men cry `peace, peace,' but there can be no peace as long as there is one American somewhere dying for the rest of us.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, according to a memo that was just released from the U.S. Justice Department from 2005 and reported in the Houston Chronicle today, it reveals procedure and criteria for arresting, detaining, prosecuting and deporting illegals that come into the United States. It is a very interesting memo. Apparently the Department of Justice did not want to make this memo public for some time. Now we understand why. According to this memo, Texas prosecutors along the Texas-Mexico border generally do not prosecute illegals until the sixth offense. In other words, they have to come over, get caught; come over, get caught; come over, get caught; come over, get caught; come over, get caught; come over, get caught, and the sixth time our Federal Government decides, okay, we get the message, we are going to prosecute you for your sixth illegal entry into the United States. So we don't prosecute them the first time like most Americans would want. And, of course, the illegals on the other side of the border from whatever country they come from know this is our procedure. According to this Department of Justice memo, it says because of a ``lack of resources and bed space to detain and prosecute every illegal entry violator,'' we are not able to prosecute them the first time. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. This is bad American policy. According to the border agents who work on the Texas-Mexico border and throughout the South, they arrest 1 million illegals a year coming into the United States; and we are telling them you have to work six times harder because the first time just doesn't count. According to T.J. Bonner, the head of the Border Patrol Association, he said: ``It's devastating on morale. Our agents are risking their lives out there, and then they're told, Sorry, that doesn't meet the criteria,'' and they must be released. So what does this mean? This means that the Federal Government and the Justice Department and the Federal prosecutors along the Texas- Mexico border and the entire border with Mexico need to get their act together and prosecute people that illegally come into the United States. They need to quit prosecuting the border protectors and spending all of the American money going down into Mexico and finding drug smugglers and giving them immunity for bringing drugs into the United States and prosecuting border agents like Ramos and Compean. They need to quit making deals with seven or eight illegals who came into Texas and were caught by Deputy Gilmer Hernandez, and then they were given a deal to stay in the country, given green cards, all to prosecute Deputy Hernandez because he fired his gun. We need to find the resources to protect our border. Whatever it takes, we have to protect the border. It is the duty of our government to protect the sovereignty of this Nation. Today this House just spent billions of dollars dumping money for spinach farmers and peanut farmers and for all kinds of little special pork projects in this country. Maybe that money would have been better spent to find more facilities to detain the illegals, to find more immigration judges to hear these cases, and to find more prosecutors who will do their job and prosecute the illegals in this country and deport them back where they came from no matter where they are. Mr. Speaker, it is the first duty of government to protect its people, and that includes the people that live in the United States. Part of that protection is to keep us protecting from the unlawful invasion of foreigners who come to this country without permission. Whether they come here just for illegal reasons, criminal intent, whether they are human smugglers or drug smugglers, or whether they are terrorists, they need to stay out. And when caught, they need to be deported the first time, not the sixth time. This six time rule, five get-out-of-jail-free cards by our Federal Government, and this absurd policy needs to be eliminated immediately. I yield back the remainder of my time saying that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a war supplemental bill, but there is so much nonwar spending in this bill. For example, one portion of the bill dumps millions of dollars in Liberia. The last I saw, Liberia is not even on the same continent as Iraq. And why does this bill have anything to do with funding Liberia and their needs? But more importantly, this bill puts our troops at risk, because it sows the cloud of defeatism and cynicism that seems to be predominant in Washington, D.C. Congresses before us have tried to run the war, even as far back as the Continental Congress. They were so upset with George Washington, they wanted to get rid of the Commander in Chief and replace him with somebody else. His comments to the Continental Congress then are worth noting today. He said, ``We should never despair. Our situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better. So it will again.'' And that is what we must do. Support our troops. Give them the troops that they need to finish the mission that we have asked them to accomplish on behalf of national security.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Presidents Washington and Lincoln understood, as does Michael Auberry, the true value of man's best friend. America would have never known the greatness of General George Washington if his dog, Mopsey, had not saved the young lad when he wandered far from home. Fido, Lincoln's dog, allegedly jumped in front of a knife-wielding drunk, saving President Lincoln from injury. Gandalf is the latest of these heroes. Gandalf, a 2-year-old Shiloh shepherd heard the cries for help and answered like a true soldier. He led searchers to Michael Auberry, a 12-year-old Boy Scout who had been lost for 4 days in the woods. Thanks to Gandalf, Michael was safely returned to his family. Gandalf, a search-and-rescue dog, is a trailing dog trained to pursue specific individuals by following their scent. When time is short and the situation is extreme, it is man's best friend who answers the call. Rescue dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, and drug dogs are always loyal to guide, reassure, rescue, and save us. As Harry Truman once said: ``Dogs are as necessary to the welfare of our country as Wall Street and the railroads.'' Dogs, man's best friend. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are finally discussing the U.S. Constitution. So much legislation goes through this House from both sides where the Constitution is never mentioned as to whether it is constitutional or not. No question about it: the folks in Washington, D.C. ought to be represented in the House. But the Constitution does not allow it except by constitutional amendment. And history is on the side of what I say. The 23rd amendment to the Constitution that was approved in 1961 gives the District of Columbia and the people here representation or voting in the Presidential election by giving them three electors. It took a constitutional amendment to give them that right. The arguments were made then that are being made now. D.C. was not a State in 1961 any more than it is a State today. So let us proceed. Let us proceed with a constitutional amendment if need be and give the folks in Washington, D.C. a representation in this House of Representatives. But do it the right way. Do it the constitutional way, not by just some legislation of Congress.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Mexican Government needs to stay out of America's business. Let me explain. Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez of the town of Rocksprings, Texas, Edwards County, the size of Delaware, one of three deputy sheriffs on patrol at any given time in this massive area of west Texas, is on patrol in the middle of the night, and he sees a van with the lights off running a red light. He does what he is supposed to. He attempts to pull the van over. He notices as he approaches the van that numerous people are laying down on the floorboards. As he gets closer, the driver speeds off, turns around and tries to run over Deputy Gilmer Hernandez. Deputy Hernandez pulls out his pistol, blows out two of those tires, and the vehicle finally stops. One passenger in the van was slightly injured, but the people in the van jump out and take off running because they are all illegally in the United States, seven or eight of them. Deputy Hernandez immediately calls the sheriff of the county to show up. The sheriff shows up; he calls the Texas Rangers to make an independent investigation of this shooting. The Texas Rangers--there is probably no finer law enforcement group in the United States, or in the world for that matter--make an independent investigation and determine that Deputy Hernandez acted lawfully and within the law when he fired his weapon. But then the Mexican government gets involved, and in their arrogance, demand in writing from their consulate general to our Federal Government that Deputy Hernandez be prosecuted. And our Federal Government, like the cavalry, shows up later and reinvestigates the case; basically uses the same facts, talks to all of the illegals, and prosecutes Deputy Hernandez for shooting his weapon in self-defense. It is ironic that the consulate general wouldn't even allow our government to talk to the illegals until the consulate general got them all together in a room and apparently got their story straight. And once that happened, they talked to Federal prosecutors, and the Federal prosecutors prosecuted Deputy Hernandez, where they were saying he should have stopped firing his weapon after the van went on by. How ridiculous a statement that is. Deputy Hernandez was convicted, and this week he was sentenced to 1 year and 1 month in the Federal penitentiary. The Federal judge apparently did everything he could to get the lowest possible sentence under the Federal guidelines, even though Deputy Hernandez should not have been prosecuted. The illegals in the van should have been prosecuted. The human smuggler driving the van, he should have been prosecuted. But no, they got a deal; they got green cards to stay in the United States. It seems like our government is prosecuting the wrong people. It is interesting that Deputy Hernandez was also ordered to pay $5,000 to the illegal who was slightly injured. That is nonsense. It is like someone who breaks into your home, you try to stop that person, they are injured in the scuffle, and the next thing you know you have to pay for their injuries when they illegally broke into your home. That is the same thing that Deputy Hernandez is supposed to do under this court order. It sounds to me like the Mexican government ought to be paying restitution. They ought to pay restitution to the American taxpayers for the cost of the illegals that come into the United States and get all the social programs that the rest of us pay for. The Mexican government ought to pay restitution for their drug smugglers that come into the United States, bringing that cancer that has spread across our land. Our Federal Government obviously needs to get on the right side of the border war, and that is the American side of the border war. It is interesting how our Federal Government is so relentless in prosecuting border protectors who are protecting the dignity of this country, doing everything they can to keep people from illegally coming into this country, while our Federal Government gives lip service to border control. Of course that is the news that the drug smugglers and the illegals like, that our Federal Government prosecutes the border protectors rather than prosecute them. And why does our Federal Government jump when the Mexican government arrogantly demands that our border protectors be prosecuted? Hopefully we are going to find out the answer to that. Who is driving the process, the Mexican government or our own government? And anyway, who cares what the Mexican government thinks, they are irrelevant to border security and what our border protectors do. Mr. Speaker, the border war continues, and the Federal Government needs to get on the right side of the border war because right now they are missing in action. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, peace officers are the first line of defense between the law and the lawless. Those who wear the badge sometimes go to unbelievable efforts to capture the bad guys. New York City peace officer Angel Cruz is one of those remarkable peace officers. Officer Cruz was trying to arrest Hugo Hernandez for a minor offense on a subway platform in Queens, New York when, without warning, Hernandez slashed the officer across the face with a knife, then stabbed him in the head, cracking his skull. Even after being stabbed, Cruz, a 15-month rookie with NYPD, was able to shoot and wound the outlaw. When backup arrived, Cruz, with blood spouting from his head, had chased Hernandez down the subway stairs, and was trying to handcuff him. The criminal, Hernandez, was an illegal from Guatemala who had already been deported for assaulting six New Jersey police officers. Our Nation appreciates the relentless work of Officer Cruz and NYPD. And as for the illegal, he should go to jail, be deported back to Guatemala, and Guatemala should pay restitution to Officer Cruz. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, there are a lot of clever words for quitting in Iraq: withdrawal, realignment, redeployment, the terms go on and on. The cloud of defeatism grows larger and larger in Washington, D.C. Numerous pieces of legislation have been introduced in this House, from outright retreat and withdrawal to letting Congress become the generals of the war. Taking money from the war effort leaves our troops there at risk. There seems to be three alternatives: retreat with defeat; stalemate, which seems to be the current situation of fighting not to lose; or, three, supply more troops to the ones that are there so they can finish the job and then come home. The third choice seems to be the wisest. Congress tried to tie the pursestrings in the Vietnam War. Congress tried to prematurely bring the troops home in Vietnam, and we know the results in Vietnam. We fought that war as if not to lose it. It is in the best interest of the United States to help our military finish their mission in Iraq and stabilize Iraq before we leave. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, today 6 months after meeting with Members of Congress and with the staff of OIG of Homeland Security about Ramos and Compean, Richard Skinner of the Office of the Inspector General is now saying his staff did not lie to Members of Congress, but his staff was just mistaken about certain facts when it briefed us. He also is saying the meeting was confidential. I am sure the OIG staff wishes it had been since the staff misled Congress on what occurred at the border. Is Skinner saying it is okay to mislead Congress in a confidential meeting? Sounds like it to me. The meeting was only confidential in the fantasy world of OIG. And how would Skinner know; he wasn't even there. His staff not only told Congress inaccurate things about the case, they said they have the documents to prove their assertions. Even after repeatedly asking for such documents, they were never produced. Why? Because they don't exist. Now that the transcript of the trial is completed, we find out about the inaccurate statements of OIG to Congress. OIG would do well to simply tell the truth and get accurate information in public and private rather than use slick Madison Avenue press releases to justify their misstatements to Congress. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, each year, people enter the United States to pursue the American dream. The members of the Austin family were determined to live here and become citizens of our great Nation. On March 21, 2007, the community of Kingwood, Texas, will celebrate the fact that the Austin family--Tony, Cheryl, Ryan, and Laura--are now officially citizens of the United States of America. Cheryl was born in Luanshya, a copper mining town in Zambia in 1951. Tony moved to Luanshya with his parents in 1953. The two met in 1968 at a Lions Club Gala Dance and were married in March 1970. In 1973, they had two children, Ryan and Lauren. Tony had the opportunity to move his family to the United States because of the company he worked for in South Africa. Tony was interested in coming to the United States because he often traveled to Houston for business and had the opportunity to spend time in the suburbs. Tony was awestruck by the freedom that American families enjoy as opposed to the situation his family encountered in South Africa with the deteriorating security system. Although they had a great house in a good area, they were imprisoned by the fear of robbery either at home or out on the streets. The family arrived in Houston in January 1998. They all settled in and again it became clearer how much Ryan and Lauren had been affected by the security situation of South Africa. They were amazed at the freedom they had here. The family obtained legal permanent resident status in May 2001, by which time they had decided that this was to be their permanent home. They then applied for citizenship in August 2006. The Austin family is active in the community and each member is a valuable asset to our country. Cheryl has been with Continental Airlines since October 2000 and is now a Senior Recruiter. Tony is a Regional Sales Director with a national training software company. Ryan has his own business, GameForce, in Kingwood Town Center, and Lauren is a junior at the University of Houston Business School. Although the family has had to make some adjustments, they know it is worth it because of everything they have gained by becoming U.S. citizens. Not only are they model citizens, they are incredibly patriotic and cherish the United States. I commend the Austin family on their great achievement, congratulate them on being citizens of the great United States, and wish them the best of luck in all their future endeavors. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, crime victims are once again being victimized, not by the hands of offenders but by the robber baron bureaucrats who are putting their hands in the pockets of American crime victims. Let me explain. Under a law called VOCA, Victims of Crime Act, crime victims receive money from a fund that criminals pay into as a part of their sentence. This wonderful idea makes criminals literally pay for their crimes and give compensation to injured and brutalized victims. Make criminals pay rent on the courthouse. Make them pay for the system they created. This fund is now over $1.2 billion. But now the insensitive Federal budget boys want to pick-pocket victims and take this money and put it into the abyss of the Federal Treasury. This is not taxpayer money. It doesn't belong to the Federal Government. The Feds should keep their sticky fingers off this victim money and Congress needs to protect victims from this bureaucratic theft. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, this afternoon I want to discuss criminal cases, three criminal cases that have occurred in these United States. All three of these criminal cases have to do with law enforcement officers that were prosecuted by the Federal Government for alleged crimes that they committed on the southern border with Mexico. And I want to discuss the facts of each of these cases so that we have a clear understanding on what has occurred on the border and the border war with Mexico, and how our Federal Government is so relentless in prosecuting the border protectors and not prosecuting those who come across the border illegally. The first case has to do with the Border Patrol by the name of David Sipe. David Sipe patrolled the Texas/Mexico border down in what is called the McAllen area. Pinedas, Texas, is exactly where it occurred. That is on the tip of Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico that borders Mexico. In April of 2000, he was on patrol, as he did for many years, as a Border Patrol agent. And a sensor goes off on the border. What that means is that people are coming across the border without permission, illegals, if we can use that phrase. David Sipe goes to the area where the sensor goes off and he sees 12 to 15 illegals coming across the border. Agent Sipe orders them to stop. Now, first of all, Madam Speaker, we have one patrolman and 15 illegals. It takes quite a law enforcement officer to have the courage to stop that many people coming into the United States. But he did so because that was his responsibility. Three of those illegals, however, ignored Agent Sipe and ran into a brushy area there on the Texas/Mexico border. He caught those three individuals. And one of those individuals who was illegally in the country, a Jose Guevara, attacked Border Agent Sipe. And according to Border Agent Sipe, Guevara was going for the agent's weapon while he was being attacked by this illegal. So Agent Sipe pulled out a flashlight. It is not just a little flashlight that we normally get over at Wal-Mart. It is one of those long flashlights, and he hit Guevara in the head defending himself. And the wound on Guevara's head required about five stitches later. Now, instead of prosecuting Guevara for assaulting the border agent, instead of prosecuting Guevara for being in the country illegally, our U.S. Federal Government swoops on the scene and charges Agent Sipe with using excessive force in the arrest of this illegal. The government then gave Guevara, the illegal, and two other illegals what I call ``get out of jail free'' cards. In other words, their crime, illegally coming to the United States, their crime in my opinion of assaulting a border agent, was forgiven with some kind of backroom deal with the promise of those individuals to testify against Agent Sipe in Federal Court for using excessive force against these individuals. But that is not all your Federal Government did for these illegals. Giving them get out of jail free cards also gave them Social Security cards, witness fees, and permits allowing them travel back and forth across the border to Mexico without any type of intervention, and further gave them living expenses or money, and, finally, gave them free government phones to use while they were waiting to testify against Sipe. So this is the deal they got to testify against the border agent. Now, it has been my experience as a judge in Texas for over 22 years, trying only criminal cases, only serious felony cases, that when the prosecution starts making deals with witnesses or law violators and giving them some benefit for testimony, they usually get the testimony that the government wants. And so what happened in this case? The agent was tried, he was convicted, and the three illegals who got immunity testified against him. He was convicted in the year 2006. During the trial, the Mexican Government was involved in this case, pursuing and demanding prosecution of Agent Sipe. Now, let's talk about the rest of the story. He is convicted and his case is on appeal. But it turns out, while his case is on appeal, he files a motion for a new trial with the trial judge, telling the trial judge that at his own trial the jury should have heard about the deal made to the illegals. You see, the jury was never told about this backroom deal made with these witnesses. The Federal judge agreed and ordered a new trial. During these hearings, the U.S. Attorney's Office of course never told the defense that they had given the illegals money or U.S. documents or immunity or green cards or Social Security or cell phones. See, the government never told the defense that during the trial, and they didn't know this deal was made with these illegals, and it is found out after the trial. And once this is found out, brought to the attention of the Federal judge, the defense saying the jury should have known about this so they could hear and judge the credibility of these illegals, a new trial was ordered. And sure enough, he was tried again, the second jury hearing all the truth, the second jury hearing the evidence that the prosecution suppressed in the first trial, and the second jury found Agent Sipe not guilty of any wrongdoing in January of this year. So the facts of this case: Federal Government prosecutes the border agent for using force; the Federal Government hides evidence in the trial; they are caught hiding evidence; a new trial is ordered; the new trial occurs. The jury hears about the deals made with the illegals, and the second jury finds the agent not guilty, and properly so. Agent Sipe is trying to get his job back as a border agent, but of course our Federal Government is fighting that situation as well. It makes you wonder, Madam Speaker, why our Federal Government is so relentless in prosecuting border agents, especially in a case like this where the person was found not guilty. And why must our Federal Government withhold and hide evidence that is favorable to the defense in a criminal case? Is it just so they can have convictions of border agents? It makes one wonder, does it not, Madam Speaker? The second case involves one that most Americans have heard about, two border agents once again on the Texas/Mexico border. Their names are Ramos and Compean. Both of these individuals I have met. I have met their families. They are wonderful people. And both of them, all they ever wanted to be was a law officer protecting the U.S. border from people illegally coming into the United States. So while these two individuals are on patrol as border agents on the southern border with Mexico, Agent Ramos responded to a call for backup from Agent Compean along the Texas/Mexico border. He had noticed a suspicious van coming into the United States, Texas, if we will, and it looked funny. And based upon his experience as a border agent, a van coming across the river at this desolate area only means one thing to most people: that means it is a drug dealer bringing in drugs. In the van was an individual by the name of Aldrete-Davila. He was a drug smuggler. And when he comes across the river, he notices the border agents see him. He tries to turn the van around and head back to Mexico. He abandons the van, takes off running. He gets in a scuffle with one of the border agents right there in the Rio Grande riverbed. He runs on back across the Rio Grande river. Shots are fired by both border agents. And Davila, as he is going into Mexico, is shot in I believe the left cheek and the bullet coming out the right cheek. Of course, no one at the scene neither, Ramos or Compean, the border agents, knew that they had hit this individual because he disappears. He already had somebody waiting for him on the Mexican side to pick him up and take him back into Mexico someplace. They go to the van, and in the van, sure enough, 800 pounds of marijuana. Now, that doesn't mean much to most of us; but if we give you a money figure, it will be relevant. The marijuana in the van was worth approximately $1 million. And it is recovered. And then the border agents, after other border agents appear on the scene, are eventually charged with using excessive force against the drug dealer. How did this all occur, since no one even knew the drug dealer was hurt? Well, it turns out, once again, our Federal Government gets involved in this case, goes to Mexico, finds the drug smuggler Aldrete, brings him back to the United States, takes him to a hospital in El Paso, Texas, and pays for his recovery and his surgery. Paid for it, that means American taxpayers paid for his surgery and paid for his treatment. And while there, he decided he is going to sue the Federal Government, that means us, the taxpayers, for $5 million for being shot by two border agents. Now, it is true, Ramos and Compean probably did not follow appropriate policy in the way they handled the reporting of this incident, and so they were suspended. They are tried, but they are not tried for violating Border Patrol policy. They are tried for using excessive force in firing their weapon at this drug dealer as he is fleeing back to Mexico. Part of the reason that they were prosecuted was because, like in the first case with Sipe, the Mexican Government in its self-righteous arrogance demanded prosecution of these two border agents, and that is exactly what happened. They were prosecuted. They were tried in Federal Government court. It took forever for us in Congress to receive the trial transcript of that trial. And they were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in the Federal penitentiary for alleged civil rights violations Now, the Federal Government, the prosecutors, in this case made another deal, a backroom deal with the drug smuggler. They forgave him of his sins of bringing in $1 million worth of drugs if he would testify against the border agents in this trial. And he did what was expected of him: he testified just exactly the way the Federal Government wanted him to testify in this case. But now there is more to the story. It turns out that the drug dealer, while waiting to testify after picking up the first case, getting immunity from being prosecuted, and before the trial it seems as though that our little friendly drug dealer from Mexico brings in another 750 pounds of marijuana. And the Federal Government knew about this case, the DEA investigated the case, they made a report. I have that report; I have seen the report. That case is simple to be made. In other words, it could be a simple prosecution. A third-year law student could prosecute that case. But the Federal Government doesn't prosecute the drug dealer on the second case. They just ignore the second case. He is never charged; he is never arrested. Nothing ever happens in the second case. And more importantly, the jury never heard about the second case and the second deal that our Federal Government implicitly made for the drug dealer. Now, why is that important? First of all, it is withholding evidence from the jury. And as we discussed, it is basic American law that the prosecution may not withhold evidence favorable to the defense. They may not withhold it on purpose, they may not withhold it because of their negligence, and they may not withhold it because of their incompetence. If you withhold evidence from the jury that is beneficial to the defense, normally the defense is entitled to a new trial. Also in the trial the drug dealer was made out to be, by the prosecution, as he testified, just a mule and that he was bringing drugs in the United States to get a little money to help his poor sick mama down there in Mexico. Well, we understand of course that wasn't the truth. He was more than a mule. He brought over at least two different times drugs into the United States. It kind of puts him up on the ladder a little bit, each time the drugs, around $1 million of drugs, going into our streets and our highways and byways. And the prosecution ignored the second case, and the jury should have heard about the second case to judge the credibility of the witness. And what do I mean by judge the credibility of the witness? You see, when the witness comes in and testifies, the jury needs to know what deal the prosecution made with the witness to get him to testify because, as I mentioned earlier, you usually get the testimony you want when you make a deal with some criminal. And in this case, the prosecution obviously got the testimony they wanted because Ramos and Compean were convicted. And so the question is, why did our Federal Government in this case choose not to prosecute the drug dealer? Assume, if you will, that the border agents violated some policy. They probably should have been suspended, given some days off for not filling out the forms correctly or reporting it correctly. But here, on the other hand, you have got a drug smuggler bringing in $1 million worth of drugs. Now, why did our Federal Government choose to prosecute border agents and not prosecute drug smugglers? We don't know the answer to that question. We may never know the answer to that question. But we do know the Mexican Government in this case as well was involved in relentlessly wanting these two border agents prosecuted. They are both now in Federal penitentiary serving their 11- and 12-year sentences. One of them, shortly after he went into custody, was beat up by people in the local prison because of the fact that he was a Border Patrol agent and arrested many drug dealers in the past. And let me give you a little more information on this particular case. When this all came to public light about these two border agents, myself and other Members of Congress wanted to know the facts because the trial transcript had not been produced yet. So we met with members of the Office of Inspector General to try to get a briefing, if you will, on what happened down there on the border; and during that briefing we were told certain things that did not occur. We were told that Ramos and Compean had decided that day they were going to shoot a Mexican national. At the trial, there is no evidence that that ever occurred or any statement was ever made. Is that misleading Members of Congress, misleading the American public? We were also told that Ramos and Compean did not think the drug dealer had a gun. Not so. During the trial, both agents testified they had thought the drug dealer had a gun, thus the way the angle of the bullet went through one buttocks and came out the other side as if somebody is pointing a weapon at you. That was a falsehood as well. It makes us wonder as elected officials why our Federal Government is not candid with Members of Congress about the truth of this particular case. So in this particular matter, the jury didn't hear about the second case. And now they are both in prison while their case is on appeal. And, hopefully, the appellate courts will review the entire matter, reverse the case, order a new trial, and let the jury hear all the truth in the second trial, like the jury did in the David Sipe case. Now the third criminal case, which is even more recent than Agents Ramos and Compean. It also occurs in Texas, it also occurs near the Texas/Mexico border. It occurs in a place called Edwards County, Texas. Probably most Americans haven't been there. Edwards County is about the size of Delaware, and on any given day there are three deputy sheriffs on patrol. That is all. And one of those deputy sheriffs is a person by the name of Gilmer Hernandez. Gilmer Hernandez was on routine patrol by himself. Of course, they don't have enough manpower to put two people in a patrol car. And in the middle of the night, he is in the small town of Rock Springs, Texas, and he notices a truck, a Suburban, runs a red light. Deputy Hernandez pulls over the vehicle. He approaches the vehicle, and he notices a bunch of people are laying down on the floorboard of this vehicle. As he approaches the vehicle, according to Deputy Hernandez, the driver takes off, swerves around, and tries to hit and run over Deputy Hernandez. So what does he do? Well, he pulls out his pistol and he starts shooting. And what is he shooting at? The tires. Just like in the movies, I guess. Deputy Hernandez not only shot at the tires, he hit them, and he blew out at least one, maybe two tires. The vehicle stops. Seven or eight illegals jump out and take off running. Deputy Hernandez calls the sheriff, tells him exactly what happened, what he did. The sheriff arrives on the scene. The sheriff calls for an independent review or investigation of this entire thing since a shooting was involved, and in come the Texas Rangers. Many people aren't too familiar with the Texas Rangers, but they are, in my opinion, as fine a law enforcement agency as there is anywhere in the world. They work independently of everybody. The Texas Rangers investigate this case, and they find that Deputy Hernandez acted properly throughout the entire matter. Now, one thing I must mention is that while he was firing his weapon at the vehicle, one of the bullets ricocheted and hit a passenger in the lip, causing minor injuries, and that passenger stayed in the vehicle when the others fled. But then here comes the Mexican Consulate with another demand letter to our Federal Government demanding prosecution of Gilmer Hernandez for firing his weapon, even to protect himself. And then the Federal Government, our Federal Government, even though an investigation had already been done by local law enforcement, like the cavalry they show up to save the day, and Gilmer Hernandez is prosecuted for unlawfully discharging his firearm even though, in my opinion and the opinion of the other law enforcement agencies, he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Now, Gilmer Hernandez was tried and he was convicted. And on Monday he is going to be sentenced by a Federal court for firing his weapon. Let me tell you a little bit about Gilmer Hernandez. He is a deputy sheriff. He is 25. He is married and has a child. And patrolling the West Texas sands between Mexico and Texas earns him $21,000 a year. He has always wanted to be a lawman. He is proud of his service. And now he is in jail for enforcing the law. So what do we know about the illegals in this case? Remember they are illegally in the country just like the drug dealer was illegally in the country, just like the other three individuals in the Sipe case were illegally in the country. Well, our Federal Government doesn't deport them back to Mexico. Our Federal Government makes a deal with these illegals and gives those seven or eight illegals green cards so they can stay in the United States and testify against Deputy Hernandez. So it is interesting that these three cases are so similar. It is interesting how our Federal Government has such zeal to prosecute border protectors. And why does our Federal Government immediately take the side of the person that is illegally in the country whether they are an illegal or whether they are a drug dealer or whether somebody assaulted one of our Border Patrol agents? I don't know the answer to that question, but they do. And what has the effect of that been on our border protectors? What effect do you think it is on our border protectors? Border Patrol agents and deputy sheriffs that patrol the southern border with Mexico, when in doubt, they back off. Why? Because if they do their job and protect the border as we expect them to do, the Federal Government doesn't back them up. The Federal Government backs up the illegals that come into this country. All the while we have got the Mexican government back here demanding prosecution of our border protectors. It is very disturbing to see this trend. And, Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I was a judge in Texas for 22 years. I heard about 25,000 felony cases, everything from stealing to killing. And I heard every kind of defense, every kind of story, and every kind of accusation against individuals. And before that I was a prosecutor in Houston, Texas, for 8 years. And I don't have any sympathy for criminals. I don't care if they are what we consider regular criminals or peace officers that violate the law. I even prosecuted five Houston police officers one time for beating up an individual of Hispanic descent and throwing him in one of our bayous where he later drowned. I have no sympathy for criminals whether they wear the badge or don't wear the badge. But looking at these three cases makes me wonder why our government is making the choices that it is making. I guess as long as we will continue to pursue these three matters, we may find the answer. Now, many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have asked the President to pardon Ramos and Compean. That is the President's decision. He hasn't said one way or the other what he is going to do. He has the authority under the Constitution to pardon people. That is his authority, and whatever choice he makes, I respect that choice. But we are also asking for there to be congressional investigations into this entire matter of the prosecution of these cases, especially in light of the fact that we now find out that the Office of Inspector General misled several Members of Congress, like myself, of what the facts were on the border between Mexico and Texas and in the Ramos and Compean case, because we just want to get to the bottom of it and find the truth in these matters and especially why our government makes the choices that it does. You know, Madam Speaker, last year and this year we are hearing a word tossed around. The word is ``amnesty.' I am personally opposed to granting amnesty to people who are illegally in the country, rewarding them for illegal conduct. But we hear about that amnesty all the time. But before we start talking about giving amnesty to 15 to 20 million people that are illegally in the country, why don't we just give amnesty to about three people, two border agents and a deputy sheriff that are behind bars that happen to be American citizens? Give them amnesty because, in my opinion, what they have done deserves either a pardon or some form of amnesty. And it appears to me that besides really telling our law enforcement officers to back off on protecting the borders, this sends a message to other people, and those are people who want to come into the United States illegally. Now, we hear all of that about people coming over here and looking for a better life and that sort of thing. That may be true with some people. But not everybody coming over here is looking for a better life. People like Aldrete are coming over here to make a little money selling dope, over a million dollars worth of it in two cases. And failure to protect the border encourages those people to come across the border illegally as well. And then there is that other group we haven't even talked about, those people that we still use the phrase of terrorists. But since the border is unprotected, it is much easier to just come right into the United States that way instead of fly into Reagan International Airport right down the street. So when we have lawlessness on the border that breeds more lawlessness. And failure to protect the borders increases illegal activity. Failure to support law enforcement agents that are doing their legal job encourages illegal activity into the United States. I think all of this is telling us that, it appears to me, the Federal Government doesn't have the moral will to protect the borders. Why do I say that? Because this is the most powerful country that has ever existed but yet we cannot protect our borders. Why not? Because we don't have the moral will to do so. The United States defends the borders of other nations. We send our troops all over the world to defend the borders of other nations: Korea. We have got troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, all over the world. But yet we don't protect our own borders. Why not? Because maybe we don't have the moral will to do so. If we did, we could close the borders to any illegals coming into the United States. So our Federal Government needs to get on the right side of the border conflict, and that is the American side and what is best for the United States. Not what is best for illegals, not what is best for some foreign country, not what is best for drug dealers coming into the United States, but what is best for the United States. And our Federal Government needs to get on the right side of the border conflict. Madam Speaker, when I was a judge, I always wanted to make sure that in that particular case that justice occurred. To quote Willie Nelson, not that he was a great legal mind, but he made the comment that justice is the one thing we should always find. And that is true. Justice is the one thing we should always find. And, hopefully, if we bring more light to these law enforcement cases where law enforcement officers are prosecuted for doing their job, bring light to the American public that justice will prevail because I do believe in our system. I believe in our system of the trial court and the jury and the appellate courts, but I also believe in openness and that the prosecution cannot and should not ever hide evidence that is favorable to the defense. And down the road, hopefully, we will see justice occur, that these wrongs will be righted, that the innocent will be set free, and that the guilty will be prosecuted for their crimes against the United States and against law enforcement officers that protect our border day in and day out. Now, I have been down to the Texas-Mexico border seven or eight times. I have been to the California-Mexico border. I hope all Members of Congress, especially those that live in other parts of the country, go to the border to see what it is like. It is a volatile area of our country, and all you need to do is go down there and see it. When I was down at the Nuevo Laredo sector, where there is a high volume of crossings into the United States, both legal and illegal, I asked a former Texas Ranger, I said, What is it like down here? Give me your opinion. And he said, Well, Congressman Poe, after dark on the Texas-Mexico border, it gets western. It gets western. What he meant by that is it gets violent. It gets violent. Sheriff Rick Flores of Webb County, Texas, and Webb County is also on the Texas-Mexico border, stated not too long ago that it is not unusual to be down on the Texas border on the American side and get gunfire from the Mexican side coming across shooting at his deputies. Whom is that from? Drug cartels fighting over turf. It gets western. And the people we have asked that have sworn an oath to protect our border are the peace officers. They wear the badge. They are all that stands between us and the lawless. And we have the duty to make sure they have the equipment to do that job and fulfill that mission, and we have the duty to make sure that when they are in conflict and they have not committed any violation of the law that we totally support them and that we don't give in to the political pressures of other nations. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, while the flow of illegals continues to storm across our southern border, much to the joy of those who want cheap plantation labor, Mexico now wants to keep some of its workers home. President Calderon wants the United States to invest in Mexico and use Mexican workers. Well, what does that really mean? Does that mean more U.S. foreign aid? Or have U.S. companies expand to Mexico and use those Mexican workers? Either way, Calderon expects the United States to solve his problem. Mexico alone cannot or will not take care of its economic problems, thus making their problem our problem. Currently, Mexico exports its people to the United States to work and then have them send money back to Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if the United States invests in Mexico and more Mexican workers stay home, is there going to be a cross-border conflict over who gets the worker? It would be ironic indeed to see the pro-amnesty cheap labor crowd in the United States encouraging illegal entry while the Mexican Government tells workers to stay home and take new jobs provided by U.S. investment. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, behind the thick walls of some Federal prisons, inmates are being put to work. Not on chain gangs tarring roads and hacking rocks, but in prison factories. Private industries are bringing their businesses behind the barbed wire fortresses, realizing the benefits of incarcerated inmates going to work. Prison industries are operated to achieve two goals: First, they occupy the prisoners' time to keep them busy and out of trouble. The second goal is to provide those incarcerated inmates a trade and valuable work experience, a trade and experience that can be applied to the American workforce once they leave the penitentiary. Prison industries give an inmate a sense of accomplishment and achievement, and the ability to have a chance to work and live as a law-abiding citizen beyond the prison walls. In the Federal prison system, UNICOR, the Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, contracts out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and hires inmates to work behind those tall prison walls. The inmates earn 35 cents to $1.15 an hour. Now, Mr. Speaker, this money is paid by private industries, not taxpayers. And, here is the best part: The money that the inmates earn goes to, first, pay their fine; second, partial restitution to the victim through the Victims of Crime Act; and, third, the rest goes into a savings account that the inmate will get once they leave the penitentiary. This way, the prisoner literally earns his keep in the big house. He helps pay for the system he has created, relieving the taxpayers of this burden. I have had the opportunity to tour one of these prison units in Beaumont, Texas, at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Complex in my congressional district. In the Beaumont Federal prison system, prison inmates craft state-of-the-art military helmets for our troops fighting in Iraq. I have one of those helmets right here with me, Mr. Speaker. This is officially called by the Federal Government the ``personal armor for ground troops helmet.'' I just call it a helmet. It is used by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is made of Kevlar, and it provides our warriors protection from shrapnel and bullets. These helmets have been credited with saving several of our troops' lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, each month the inmates at the Beaumont Prison produce 30,000 of these helmets; 360,000 of them a year are being provided for our military. The Beaumont Prison factory also has the distinction of being the only UNICOR factory that produces these helmets. Currently, the prison is designing a more protective helmet that will soon be used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 320 inmates in the Beaumont factory making these helmets are patriots, and they think they are because they are patriots; they are doing their part in the war efforts. This is a medium security facility, and it is not the only war contributor in the Beaumont prison system. The minimum security system in Beaumont repairs damaged tanks. They receive a facelift from the inmates and their engines are overhauled. The mechanics that work in these prisons are experts in diesel mechanics, and they take a once unusable piece of machinery that has been damaged and they turn it into a war-worthy military tank once more. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I believe in using inmate labor; make them help pay for the system they have created. The taxpayer has paid for the system long enough. Some of these inmates in the Beaumont prison I met earlier on a professional basis at the courthouse, and now I am glad to see that they are turning their lives around. For behind the steel doors and tall walls of the prison, these men go to work each day producing helmets that safeguard American troops from enemy fire. They are not forced to work in the factories, but they choose to. They choose to volunteer. The inmates I talked to are proud of our troops overseas and feel a sense of connection to them by making these helmets. Prison labor programs are a good idea for inmates and for America, and certainly for the American taxpayer. Some inmates are locked up behind bars because they harmed another person's life. Now they have the chance to redeem their past deeds; they now work to save the lives of our American soldiers. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from California, and also your leadership on the Immigration Caucus. This important issue, border security, immigration is a national security issue, Mr. Speaker. And the people from Southeast Texas who I represent have long been concerned about the open borders that we have in the United States and the continuing problems that arise from that. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that money is the root of all evil. And companies like Bank of America think making a buck is more important than knowing who their customers really are. By issuing credit cards and bank accounts to people who show little, if any legitimate documentation, banks are leaving the door wide open for money laundering, fraud, and identity theft. They contribute to the magnet that drives people to the United States to come and stay here illegally. And they are blatantly sending a message to drug cartels and terrorists around the world that they are open to business for anybody that has got a little money. Bank of America's slogan is ``Higher Standards.'' Higher standards, Mr. Speaker. It seems they have no standards. Whatever happened to good corporate citizenship, where integrity takes a back seat to banking greed? Since when does greed override their responsibility? Let me read to you what the Bank's Director of Latin American Card Operation, a Mr. Brian Tuite, I think that is his last name, T-U-I-T-E, said about this recent bank program of giving credit to illegals in the United States. He said, ``These people are coming here for quality of life, and they deserve somebody to give them a chance to achieve that quality of life.'' Mr. Speaker, since when did Mr. Tuite write Federal immigration laws? And what part of illegal immigrant does he not understand? You know, with that attitude, I suggest he and Bank of America change their name to Bank of Mexico. While on the subject of Federal immigration laws, let me read Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1324(a) which defines several distinct offenses related to illegals. The law prohibits, among other things, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens, that is Federal language for illegals, to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. So what is the Department of Homeland Security doing about all this? Are they working to strengthen document standards for banks like my colleague from Tennessee is attempting to do, Ms. Blackburn? No. They are using Bank of America's position to argue for more guest workers and for amnesty that would reward illegals en masse. They seem not to get it. The Department of Homeland Security spokesman, Russ Knocke said banking products aimed at illegal immigrants reinforce the need for a temporary worker program. This is nonsense. His idea rewards the unlawful activity of being in the country illegally by now saying it is permissible activity to be here illegally. Banking products aimed at illegal immigrants do not reinforce the need for a temporary worker program. They reinforce the need to enforce the border rules, strengthen interior enforcement of immigration laws and punish companies who openly flout the rule of law. How do we expect to hold employers who knowingly hire illegals accountable when American banks are rolling out the welcome mat to illegals and giving them credit? Issuing credit cards to people without valid and legitimate documentation makes no sense. The banking industry would have you believe it has to do with helping these poor individuals with bad credit history. This is nonsense, again. It is all about banks cashing in on the underground illegal cash economy, pure and simple. It is all about money. It always has been, and it always will be. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1314, the Photo Identification Security Act that Mrs. Blackburn has spoken about and offered tonight. This legislation will close the Federal loophole created in the PATRIOT act that allows for financial institutions to accept these bogus alternate forms of identification when opening accounts or obtaining credit cards. Like Mrs. Blackburn pointed out, many American citizens and lawful immigrants have difficulty obtaining credit or credit cards, but banks are making it easier for illegals to obtain credit and credit cards. This bill will require any official business with the Federal Government or financial institutions to accept one of the forms of identification that are normal, such as a Social Security card, with a government issued identification card, including a state driver's license, a U.S. or foreign passport or U.S. citizenship and immigration service photo identification card. The Mexican government-issued matricula consular card under this new legislation will no longer be accepted. Now, Mr. Speaker, the MATRICULA CONSULAR CARD, issued by the nation of Mexico, is an identification card made by the Mexican government for Mexican nationals that are illegally in the United States. Banks and even our Federal Government have now begun to accept this as a valid identification form. We need to work with the banking industry and convince them to maintain the integrity of our laws and provide strict guidelines on acceptable and secure identification policies. Banks like Bank of America need to stop encouraging illegal entry into the United States and quit pandering to the illegals that are here, all in the name of the all mighty peso. So I appreciate the time the gentleman from California has given me and, hopefully, working together, we can stop this nonsense of allowing illegals in this country to obtain special privileges over American citizens and lawful immigrants.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since 1969, over 3,200 people have died as a result of political violence in Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement lessened the violence in Northern Ireland considerably, making it a safer place to live and allowing its beleaguered economy to prosper. While these developments are positive steps forward, political differences between the opposing sides of this conflict led to a stalemate, which in 2002 persuaded the Blair government to suspend the Belfast Northern Ireland Assembly and shift power to direct rule from London. Events have now presented an opportunity to move forward. Last week, a new Northern Ireland Assembly was elected, and at the end of this month, if an administration is formed, rule from Westminster will cease, with Northern Ireland assuming the reins of power for its own self-government. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in expressing his fondest hopes for the success of the Good Friday accords, has stated, ``Enemies would become not just partners in progress but sit together in government, and paramilitaries who used to murder each other as a matter of routine would talk to each other and learn to live with each other.'' Mr. Speaker, these are noble and lofty goals. While no one thought that they would be easy to achieve and many challenges have arisen, combat is now taking place in the political sphere rather than through violent means. Inch by inch, day by day, with focused determination, success is finally emerging. Mr. Speaker, ours is a significant voice in the global community that must be raised in support of the progress that has already been achieved, and in calling for further efforts to achieve the goals of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. When Americans visit Europe today, it is hard to see how very damaged the countries of that continent were when they emerged from the destruction of the Second World War. American assistance played a very important role in rebuilding Western Europe in the 1940s and the 1950s, and American arms played a crucial role in protecting the democracies of Europe from the advance of Soviet communism during the Cold War. Ultimately, however, Europeans needed to do more on their own to build upon a foundation that the United States had first provided. The 1957 Treaty of Rome, signed by France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg was one of the first steps that Western Europe took to put the causes and the legacy of the Second World War behind them. The treaty established a free-trade region known as the European Economic Community, the cornerstone of what we today know as the European Union. A post-World War II economically ravaged Europe reasoned that if nations are linked economically, in this case by recalling the role that economic decline and hindered trade among nations had played in the years leading up to World War II, the creators of that free trade zone saw that the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital, and people might well prove to be a great deterrent to conflict between the states of Europe, large and small. Over the subsequent decades through the entry of new members and expansions both geographically across Europe and functionally across issues, the European Community grew beyond the original core membership of the 1950s and assumed responsibilities going well beyond trade. Today, the European Union indeed counts among its member states countries that once were under Soviet domination. It has worked to transfer more powers from its individual member states to the overall organization centered on the road to creating a more unified European foreign and security policy and making the European Union an organization that the United States increasingly looks to for leadership on transatlantic issues, joining the NATO alliances that continue to bind us together in that common cause. While the European Community continues to provide a framework within which to conduct international trade, such as multilateral trade negotiations with the United States, it has also advanced the cause of liberty, free markets, democratic institutions, and respect for human rights throughout the European continent. The Treaty of Rome was an important step in building on the foundation that the United States helped create after World War II for Europe. Today, we look to a strong Europe as seen in the expanded NATO and expanded and strengthened European Union as a foundation on which we can work together to address new and ever growing challenges. Therefore, with enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, it is that this House should commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of this Treaty of Rome.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, today is judgment day. A quiet voice is crying from the grave for justice; it is the voice of a 9-year-old girl named Jessica Lunsford. Jessica was kidnapped in the middle of the night from her home by a professional child molester; his name is John Couey. The criminal abused Jessica for several days and then buried her alive in his backyard. When found, Jessica had poked her tiny fingers through the plastic bag seeking air. Last week, a jury convicted the child killer of capital murder and the punishment hearing begins today in Florida. The State is seeking the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, evil doesn't get much worse than stealing, abusing and murdering little girls. Society cannot allow this type of conduct to occur. Society can only eliminate it. The punishment assessed on this criminal will set a price for this dastardly act. Hopefully the good people of Florida will, by their verdict, say to all child killers, leave our children alone or face an early meeting with your maker. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Wexler, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, and also Ranking Member Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, for their work on this legislation. We have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to other congressional business, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Thursday, March 1, 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. 118, and ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 114, 115, 116, and 117.