Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, every day parents send their children to school with the faith that they will return after their classes, their sports practice, or even clubs after school. As a father of four, I know the feeling. I did the same for many years on different occasions. We as parents send our kids off, and we trust that we will see them that night for supper. But for two Beaumont, Texas, families last Thursday morning, it did not occur that way. West Brook High School students Alicia Bonura and Ashley Brown were playing in the soccer playoffs after school that day. That morning their parents wished them good luck and sent them on their way, anticipating news of a win upon their return. When they sent their daughters to school, they had no idea of the nightmare that would unfold that afternoon. Tragically, their star soccer players never came home. It was supposed to be an exciting day. Mr. Speaker, Beaumont, Texas, has suffered through a rough year with many families still feeling the effects of Hurricane Rita. The West Brook High School girls soccer team and their successes were good news to this storm-torn city. The Bruins were coming off a 14-5-2 record, and they were traveling to Humble, Texas, to take on the Houston Lamar Redskins in the Class 5A playoffs. The game had already been postponed once and it was raining again, but the game was set to take place at 5 p.m. in Humble. Unfortunately, the team never made it to the game. Around 2 p.m., about 28 miles from home in Devers, Texas, the chartered bus carrying the team, the coach and one parent chaperone swerved to miss debris that had fallen off a truck in front of them. The bus rolled onto its side into a muddy ditch. Sadly, senior Alicia Bonura and sophomore Ashley Brown lost their lives in this tragedy. Six other girls were hospitalized in serious condition. Goalie Devin Martindale lost her arm in this accident. The other five girls were Lauree Thibaut, Allison Forman, Sarah Beach, Courtney Garrod, and Sarah Babin. Two of those girls have been released from the hospital and are back home. News of the accident quickly spread back to the town and West Brook students set up a vigil in the high school gymnasium where friends and faculty prayed and hoped for the best. Soon the students were hit with the horrendous news that two of their own had been killed in this catastrophe. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, the girls are remembered for ``loving soccer, loving their school and loving everyone they came in touch with.'' Alicia Bonura, in addition to playing soccer, had played basketball, she ran cross-country, and was a trainer for the West Brook football team. She played the drums in the band and sometimes she sang vocals as well. She is remembered for her wonderful laugh and a smile that would light up a room. She was ranked number five in her class of 535, and she recently decided to attend Texas A&M University to study mechanical engineering. On her MySpace Web page she wrote: ``I love to smile and love life in general and I love God. He is such a fantastic guy.'' Under people she would like to meet, she writes, ``I can't wait to meet God.'' Moving words from one of God's children. Ashley Brown was a freckle-faced girl with long red hair. Her friends said she always made people laugh and was a free spirit and had a smile that would light up a room. Her teachers said that her fellow students gravitated to her. She was an active member in her youth ministry at her church, Calvary Baptist. Besides soccer, she loved singing, playing volleyball, skiing and playing the electric guitar. Ashley had a bulletin board in her home covered in photos and memorabilia. In the middle of the board there was a handwritten note stating the following: ``You can't choose how you are going to die, but you can choose how you are going to live.'' Mr. Speaker, in her 16 years on Earth, Ashley Brown lived life to the fullest, and she is going to be missed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to extend prayers and condolences to Alicia's and Ashley's parents, relatives, friends, and the community of Beaumont, Texas, the students and teachers and the coaches at West Brook High School and the Bruins girls soccer team. We hope that they find happiness in their fond memories of these special girls. Alicia and Ashley truly led remarkable lives. They clearly touched so many people in their short time on Earth. Heaven is certainly brighter with Alicia and Ashley there, and the community of Beaumont Texas should take comfort. They now have two extra guardian angels looking down on them. Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, students at Skyline High School in Colorado are banned from waving the American flag. The principal is reported as saying, ``These flags were being used as a symbol of bigotry, a symbol of hostility. They were being used to inflame different groups, and we're not going to tolerate that.'' This principal is more concerned about hurting the feelings of people illegally in the U.S. than he is about Americans' freedom of expression. This principal is obviously unaware the flag was offensive to the British who were also illegally in the U.S. When the British reinvaded the United States in 1814 and were illegally on American soil, they marched on Washington waving the British flag, and they burned this very building. The British then sailed upriver to Fort McHenry and were offended by this defiant American flag that was flying. They tried to shoot it down, but Old Glory flew, and we have it down the street in the National Archives, bullet holes and all. We got our National Anthem from the glory of the Star Spangled Banner at Fort McHenry. The American flag cannot be banned in America. How absurd. What flag do you fly there at that high school, the white flag of surrender so as not to offend anyone illegally in the United States? Good thing the commander at Fort McHenry didn't care about what the British thought and was proud to be an American. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Gary Spurger of Humble, Texas has written me about unlawful entry into the United States. He says: ``I am writing you as I sit here and listen to the news and watch on TV the protests against immigration policy reform. I am tired of seeing those protesters walking the streets that we taxpayers pay for, using our school buses and resources and then waving Mexican flags and chanting `Mexico, Mexico.' ``Please do not be blinded by the protests supporting illegal immigrants. If we don't take care of us then we will not have the ability to help others less fortunate. Allowing illegal immigrants to siphon off resources that they provide no compensation to will in the end be the fall of our society. ``We need to take heed of the lessons of history such as Rome. It fell from the inside by allowing fractured and discordant groups to maintain their own unique identity to the extent that it caused Rome to no longer be Rome but nothing more than a bunch of little other countries. Recent history is teaching us just by looking at France, it is no longer French but so inclusive to the point that France is nothing more than a hodgepodge of other cultures, not French.'' Mr. Speaker, people that come to the United States must do so legally and they must expect to assimilate into this country and become Americans. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 4881.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, we call this body the people's House. In the last 24 hours, I have received numerous correspondence from people in Texas about illegal entry into America. Tonight, we will listen to some of those people. Aaron in Houston writes: ``I hope you intend to make certain that being illegal continues to mean breaking the law. I cannot understand why any elected official would want to reward any criminal with all the perks that go along with living in the greatest country in history. It makes no sense whatsoever.'' Mac in Kingwood, Texas, writes: ``Illegal immigration must be stopped and controlled immediately. We must control who and how many people come into this country. This is not a race issue, it is a national sovereignty issue. Illegal immigration reform must not include amnesty. This is rewarding those who willfully break our laws. Immigration must be reserved for those who come here legally and respect our laws. Giving illegals amnesty just encourages more illegal immigration. Why bother to immigrate here legally when you can be rewarded for doing it illegally? Drug smuggler, human trafficking, murder, identity theft, the forging of documents, driving without insurance and licenses, and potential terrorism are all the result of weak border control and terrible immigration policies. Law-abiding Americans are not going to stand by any longer while illegal immigrants thumb their noses at our laws and while the U.S. Government refuses to enforce the law.'' Donald in Humble, Texas, says: ``I find it oxymoronic to have a Department of Homeland Security and have not closed and controlled our borders. Without the security of our borders, there is no homeland security.'' Donald in Kingwood writes: ``I am writing you today to express my outrage over what I have been seeing on the news since this last weekend. I once raised my right hand and swore an oath to protect our country and constitution from foreign invaders. What I have witnessed recently has been citizens of a foreign country marching in the streets of our country waving foreign flags, carrying signs in a foreign language. The arrogance and total disregard for the sovereignty of America is infuriating. These illegal actions are being perpetrated by those who want no part of becoming an American. They simply want to come here and make money, take advantage of our social systems, and send most of that money they earn back to their `home' country. I don't buy for a minute the administration's argument that they take jobs that Americans are unwilling to do. What has happened is they have taken all the jobs that were primarily taken by young people right out of high school. This is just one of the numerous negative effects this unchecked invasion is having an our society. All one has to do is turn on the 10 o'clock news in Houston to see the effects it has on crime in our area.'' Erik in Kingwood writes: ``Please continue to press for immigration reform. As a physician, I see and treat many Mexicans without citizenship. It is rare to receive any reimbursement of any kind. Please continue to consider the rights of Americans first.'' Charles in Humble writes: ``After yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee action, I fear that some compromised watered-down immigration legislation will eventually be passed in order to placate interest groups, businesses and illegal immigrants.'' Mary in Baytown e-mails: ``Don't allow lawbreaking. Illegal means illegal. There are no distinctions in this word. You don't gain citizenship when you enter illegally. The Congress should be ashamed of even considering this idea. Okay? And no benefits. We don't even give all our hard-working people their entitled benefits, why should we give them to illegals? This is just a crime.'' Louis from Houston says, ``The key intellectual point is there are no jobs that Americans will not do if the free market is allowed to bid up on the wages. More illegals equal lower wages. That is the whole point for those who support illegal immigration.'' John also puts it well: ``In other words, the Senate thinks as follows: In order to halt illegal immigration, we must legalize it. And in order to enforce the law, we must reward those who have broken it.'' Janet in Houston says: ``America's legal system is clear: Abide by the laws or suffer the consequences. Why is it necessary to create new legislation to outlaw an already illegal act? In my opinion, enforcement of existing laws is the best use of our legislators' time and money.'' And, finally, David in Kingwood, Texas, writes: ``Please help our State and country. Uphold the law. You have done that all your professional life. Please don't make changes to allow the illegals to stay. They need to go through the process just like my grandfather and his parents did. Please stop this madness.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress must stop the unlawful invasion into our country. The American people have spoken and will continue to speak out on this issue. And Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, justice is lacking in the Ohio criminal court of Judge John Connor. Sexual deviant, Andrew Selva, admitted to approximately 20 assaults against a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old. In most societies, Selva would be looking at a life sentence in the jailhouse. But Judge Connor put the criminal on probation and basically told him, try to do better. The judge obviously lives in the never-never land of excusable conduct. Child molesters belong behind bars. That is why we build the penitentiaries. That is the only therapy that works for these predators. And the DA's office is a cohort in this injustice since it reduced the charges and had a case of trial sickness, a term applied to inferior and unprepared prosecutors who will not go to trial and advocate on behalf of victims for fear of losing the case. The real losers are the two victims. The criminal abused them and then the judge and the DA abused them and victimized them again. The judge and the DA should both resign and become defense attorneys, since they both obviously are more concerned about criminals than they are victims. Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, the judge and the DA would both be found guilty of inexcusable conduct if they were judged by the community. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for yielding some time to continue the thought about the specific issue of border security as it pertains to national security. Security has been the talk of this House for the last few weeks, especially about port security, how the concern of Americans for securing the safety of our ports, with foreign governments infiltrating and running our port operations, how the American public has made that statement and Congress has responded with at least, on a temporary basis, doing something immediately about securing our ports, because it is the number one duty of government to protect or secure the people. We do a lot of debating in this House about what is the purpose of government, and it seems to do a lot of things, maybe some things that our Founding Fathers never expected or even wanted for government to do. But one of the things government must do and has a constitutional duty to do is to protect the security of the Nation from within and from without. One of those specific issues, of course, is protect our borders. Living in Texas, we constantly are concerned about the infiltration into our Nation of people from other places illegally coming here, and it serves three concerns. One, of course, the war on drugs continues to escalate, and drug cartels know there is a lot of money in selling those drugs in the United States, and so violence has occurred on the Texas border because those drug cartels are fighting over turf to bring in that cancer and prey on the weaknesses of Americans. So that is the first concern. Second concern, of course, is the universal concern in this country about terrorists, international outlaws, criminals who want to do us harm and come here for that specific purpose. Having a porous, open border encourages that conduct, and we know that those people expect to come in the United States and even try to come in the United States because of our lack of security on our borders. Then there is that third group of people who illegally enter the United States for a multitude of other reasons; and the United States, our Nation, this government, this House, the people's House, must have the moral will to protect the dignity of the border. It seems to me that Third World countries protect their borders better than we do here in the United States, and we are a Nation that can do anything. The reason we do not protect the borders and secure the border is because we do not have the will to do it as a Nation. It is interesting, we have heard a lot of rhetoric this week, especially about the bill that passed back in December that got almost no notice until the Senate starts talking about our bill and their option, or variation on that bill; but let me try to give you an example of how things are occurring in the United States by comparing it to maybe an analogy in another country. Let us say that, for some reason, I want to go to France, and based on some of the things I have said about France, the Government of France, they probably would not let me in legally. I would have to sneak in. So if I sneaked in, took my four kids, three grandkids and showed up in France, over to Paris and say, teach my kids in English and give them an education, oh, I am not going to pay for it, the French people are going to pay for this education and provide social services for my kids and my grandkids and my two grandkids that are on the way, and continued that line of thought, the people in France would get me out of the country, and rightfully so. That would be true whether I went to France or to China or even to Mexico; but, yet, that seems to be what is occurring here in the United States because of our lack of securing our borders. Our good friend from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, has already alluded to this. If we have an intruder in our home, we call those people burglars. They are not welcome guests. They are not a guest burglar. They are a burglar. But if we have an intruder to our homeland because of, I guess, political correctness, we call them an undocumented guest worker. Both are committing illegal acts because of the entry into either our home or to our homeland. They are both not invited, and the one goes to jail and the other seems to be rewarded for that illegal entry, and we continue to reward that illegal conduct. It seems to me that Mexico does have an immigration policy and to some extent that immigration policy is colonize the United States with illegal entry into the United States. We know that that is true because the Government of Mexico even publishes pamphlets and gives to individuals in Mexico how to sneak into the United States, what route to take, and so their policy is: colonize America. It is not only to colonize America, but it is to make Americans feel guilty about trying to protect the sovereignty of our own Nation. I do not know if you can see this or not, Mr. Speaker, but this is the front page today of The Washington Post. You would think that this was the Mexico City Times, but it is not. Right here in the middle are thousands of folks, many of whom are illegally in the United States, assembling in Los Angeles; and you see that the 15 to 20 flags in this photograph, they are not American flags. They are flags from Mexico, Mexican nationals, proclaiming that the United States should not basically enforce the rule of do not come here illegally; another way of trying to tell the United States that our policy should benefit Mexico rather than put America and Americans first. Illegal entry is wrong. There has been some misunderstanding about a guest worker program. We have a guest worker program. The United States grants every year 1.2 million visas to people who want to come here legally to work. Some of those take a long time to process. That is a whole other issue. The immigration department needs to move faster and quicker on that, but we grant 1.2 million legal visas for people who want to work here legally every year, but yet that has not done one thing to stop illegal entry into this country. So we must protect the dignity of the United States, secure the border. We must understand that everybody wants to live in America. I do not blame them. It is obvious this is the country, because of our history and our worth of the individual, all people want to come here. The people need to respect the dignity and the rule of law and the sovereignty of this country and come here the right way. That is the responsibility of our government, our Federal Government: secure the borders first, protect the sovereignty of our Nation, and then let us talk about what to do with people that have already illegally come into the United States. It is a complex issue, but we need to start. The time is now to move forward on border security for the three reasons that I mentioned. I appreciate my friend from Georgia allowing me to speak to this issue; and, hopefully, we can continue the dialogue and come up with some basic results that protect our homeland, like we want to protect and do protect our homes.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Yale University proudly boasts it has among its students a so-called former Taliban leader. The Taliban promotes treating women like property, intolerance for religious diversity, hate for freedom, and death to America. Has Yale let a Taliban spy into its midst? Has elitist Yale University lost its way? But Yale did have a spy graduate from its university over 200 years ago. He was a 21-year-old. His name was Nathan Hale. He was a schoolmaster, a volunteer in the Continental Army, and a spy for George Washington. While Hale was gathering intelligence on the British in 1776, he was betrayed by Tories in New York City, captured and hung by British General Howe without a trial. Though Hale is rarely mentioned in U.S. history books any more, his last words before being hung were: ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' Yale University would do well to recruit and honor students like Hale, instead of Taliban radicals who are villains to freedom. And, Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, children are never too young to understand patriotism, and be thankful for it. A group of students at Deerwood Elementary School in Kingwood, Texas, showed us that even young minds can appreciate and revere those who have fought for our great nation. The students at Deerwood paid tribute to our veterans by making cards in honor of National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week. The cards thanked the veterans for keeping us safe, fighting for our freedom and other actions inherent to the United States Armed Forces. My staff handed out the cards during a visit to the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center. Upon receiving a card, many of the veterans smiled, for the first time in a long time. One veteran even said it was the first card he'd gotten in ages. As Americans, we can learn a lot from the students at Deerwood Elementary. We, too, should always find a way to thank our brave men and women in uniform. The exceptional actions of these students are a fitting tribute to the dedicated hardworking staff of Deerwood. It is obvious to me, that the teachers are doing a great job shaping the minds of these young Americans. Deerwood students are proof that the outlook for our future generation is bright. If they already appreciate those who fight on the frontlines for our freedom, there is great hope for the future of this nation. I would like to commend the students, the principal Carol Suell, and teachers at Deerwood Elementary School for a job well done.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Old West shootouts continue in Texas. The border war has moved from the rural vastness and wide open spaces of the Rio Grande River to the big city. Gunfire in the fourth largest city in America occurred this week in urban Houston. A blazing gun battle ensued between rival human smugglers, or coyotes, as we call them, fighting over turf. The outlaws were fighting over the precious cargo of illegal aliens. After the bullets stopped, 21 people were arrested. The Houston Chronicle reports, the battle for human cargo occurred at a drop house where illegals are stored. ``They are held until relatives pay the ransom to set them loose in America,'' according to officials. It is reported the fees coyotes charge for smuggling individuals is anywhere from $1,500 to $70,000. Criminals make a profit off of illegals who unlawfully enter the United States. Agents report there is more money in smuggling illegals into the United States than smuggling drugs. Until America secures the open southern border with Mexico, the lawlessness on the border will spread and breed more lawlessness in urban Americans. Americans and our government must have the moral will to protect the sovereignty of this Nation. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I request permission to take Mr. Jones' time.

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor New York State Trooper Andrew Sperr. Each person who wears a badge walks a thin blue line between life and death. Their families wonder when their police officer reports for duty, if that person will return home. On March 1, 2006, Trooper Sperr did not return. He was shot and killed in the line of duty during a blazing gun fight with bank robbers in Big Flats, New York. Just after noon, Andrew Sperr stopped to investigate a suspicious pickup truck on the side of the road. As he approached the vehicle, the robbery suspects opened the door and opened fire on him, striking him multiple times. At least one round struck him in the right side above his body armor. He was a dedicated lawman, so Trooper Sperr was able to return fire, and he wounded both of the suspects, which eventually led to their arrest, even though he was mortally wounded himself. Andrew Sperr was 33 years of age. He was from Greece, New York, and he had been a member of the New York State police force for 10 years. Though he had no kids of his own, he was greatly involved in lives of his 10 siblings and their kids, and was godfather to several of his nieces and nephews. He was known as AJ to close family and friends, and he was remembered as always being the center of all activity. He spent his free time on his 80-acre farm in Steuben County, New York. He loved the outdoors and in his other free time he was a hunter and a wildlife photographer. As a young kid, Andrew Sperr had wanted to serve his community by becoming a peace officer. In his life and his death, service was his mission. Friends family and co-workers remember him as a compassionate public servant who generally cared about the people he came in contact with on a daily basis, no matter who they were. He had recently won the outstanding trooper award for the second year in a row. When terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, Andrew Sperr was there. He volunteered to go and help the people of New York, as well as the citizens of the United States, by providing law enforcement in the aftermath of that attack on America. Trooper Sperr also traveled to Louisiana this past fall in Hurricane Katrina and helped those folks in that area, neighbors. Madam Speaker, as a former judge in Texas, I have had the opportunity to speak several times in New York and to the troopers at the New York State Police Academy in Albany, New York. After we got through the language barrier, I found these right-thinking Americans to be passionate about protecting the citizens of New York State and bringing outlaws to justice. Trooper Andrew Sperr was proud to be a member of this group of law officers. Trooper Andrew Sperr died doing what he wanted to do, protecting, serving and defending the people. As thousands of his fellow State troopers, law enforcement personnel, friends and family, mourn his loss, our prayers go out to his family for allowing his life to be sacrificed for the rest of us. Andrew J. Sperr was a dedicated officer and a compassionate friend to all. He served with distinction and honor, and he will be missed. America and Americans were better because of the life of Andrew Sperr. He wore the badge and proudly took the oath to protect and serve. Madam Speaker, peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between safety and anarchy. They are all that stands between the people and the barbarians. Trooper Andrew Sperr died protecting the rest of us from those outlaws. So God bless those that wear the badge of the American peace officer. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House International Relations Committee, I would like to congratulate our neighbors to the north on their recent Parliamentary elections and the swearing in of Stephen Harper, the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada on February 6, 2006. Prime Minister Harper ran a successful campaign focused on a conservative agenda and creating a smaller, more effective government. Our two countries have had and will continue to have friendly diplomatic relations. The United States and Canada are each other's largest trading partners with $1.3 billion of trade crossing our shared border every day. It is my sincere desire that our American and the newly formed Canadian Government are not overly consumed by our economic ties that we turn a blind eye to ensuring strong border security. Our two countries will need to stand side by side and continue working together as neighbors to approach future challenges and confront mutual dangers to keep our countries safe from terrorism. It is now a known fact, despite some of the rhetoric in the American media, that none of the 9/11 hijackers entered across the U.S.-Canadian border to plan and implement their attacks. However, there have been two confirmed cases of terrorists captured while attempting to cross our large and extensive northern border. There is no denying that this threat still exists today and those who seek to do us harm will continue to exploit our vulnerabilities. The United States and Canada have taken measures to better secure our shared border. Recent efforts include a 32-point plan, commonly referred to as the ``Smart Border Accord'' that secures the border and facilitates the flow of travelers and goods through coordinated law enforcement operations, intelligence-sharing, infrastructure improvements, improvement of compatible immigration databases, visa policy coordination, common biometric identifiers in travel documents, prescreening of air passengers, joint passenger analysis units, and improved processing of refugee and asylum claims. I applaud these efforts and welcome ways to improve document standards that govern travel across our borders. I believe this can be done without sacrificing security and efficiency. In today's world, with the threats that we face, it is essential that we have friends and allies. Our Canadian neighbors to the north are our friends. I again congratulate them on their successful elections and look forward to working together in the future to ensure that both countries remain safe, secure, and prosperous for years to come.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago this month, the fight for liberation of Iraq began in the hot desert lands of the Middle East. On March 19, 2003, American soldiers embarked on the war against tyranny, treachery and terrorism. Since then, thousands of brave, passionate Americans have fought for freedom for the Iraqi people. As the song says, all have given some, and some have given all in this battle for liberty and justice. The Americans went to Iraq as freedom fighters and have established a democracy in that place that has never known true freedom. Those young Americans are all volunteers, and more Americans are joining the military each day to continue this battle. When I was in Iraq, I visited with those Americans, and they told me they are winning this war on terror, and I agree with them. This is the finest military ever assembled in history, and we owe them our support and our resolve. I paraphrase what President Kennedy said, We will support any friend, oppose any foe, pay any price to secure the defense of liberty. Some things are just worth fighting for, and freedom is one of those things. God bless these Americans, and that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, with the overwhelming problem of illegals in this country, some in this Congress want to make it worse. They think that an amnesty worker program is the answer to this problem, and tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will be meeting to consider an amnesty worker program as a solution to the problem. I could not disagree more. A program granting amnesty for millions of lawless illegals that are already breaking the law by being here defies common sense. We heard that illegals will take jobs Americans won't take. Well, there is absolutely no proof of this assertion. Also, this statement is an insult to the American worker. The jobs illegals sometimes get are below minimum wage, thus driving down the value of American workers. This program is another way of outsourcing American jobs but by bringing the foreigners to our country rather than shipping the jobs to their country. Under proposals here in Congress, there is no limit to the number of workers allowed to enter; and they would be allowed to bring with them their families. And did I mention that they are expected to leave then after 6 years? We already know that 60 percent of the people who legally came into the United States never left after their visas expired. What makes us think this time will be different? With an amnesty worker program come the worker's family members who will need the use of our public school systems, health care, public housing and other social services. Where is this money going to come from, Madam Speaker? Well, it is going to come from the American taxpayer. The taxpayer always pays. That is the responsibility, for some reason, for American taxpayers to pay for those people who are from foreign countries illegally in the United States. And it is also likely the United States will lose even more money because the remittances that these guest workers send home to their families and their home country is growing every day. According to a survey by the InterAmerican Development Bank, Mexican and Latin American immigrants living in the United States already send $30 billion a year in remittances back to their native country. It is also estimated that 20 percent of the cost of health care and 20 percent of the cost of education comes from those who are illegally in the United States and not contributing to pay for the cost. Making these so-called workers legal will not change the cost to the American taxpayer. And after 6 years, what plans do we have to make sure that these individuals will leave? We are taking their word for the fact that when their time is up they will quietly pack up and go back home. This defies common sense. This same sort of situation occurred back in 1986 when 3 million illegals were given blanket amnesty on the condition there would be a ban on hiring other illegal immigrants. This so-called ban was essentially ignored by employers, and we have no reason to expect a different result this time. Furthermore, the amnesty work program would be managed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the CIS. Well, the United States Government Accounting Office released a report this week charging these bureaucrats with a failed organizational infrastructure and massive mismanagement and corruption. The report shows that the CIS doesn't have a handle on fraud, doesn't do enough to deter it and won't have a fraud management system in place until 2011. The GAO report also found that most of the fraud is a result of a backlog of applications which placed additional pressure on the CIS to produce or process applications faster, making an increased risk of incorrect decisions, including approval of potentially fraudulent applications. Because of this pressure, multiple offenders are able to game the system, because neither the CIS nor the Immigration and Customs Enforcement regularly penalize those illegals caught committing fraud. The GAO also found that, of the 94 terrorists known to operate in the United States between the 1990s and 2004, including the September 11 hijackers, two-thirds committed immigration fraud. And now we want bureaucrats to run an amnesty worker program when they are already not capable of the running the programs that they have. We must remember that an amnesty worker program will not stop illegal immigration. We already have three guest worker programs in place, and we are still dealing with illegal immigration on a daily basis. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized 3 million aliens in an attempt to control and reform immigration woes. A lot of good that did. Now, 20 years later, those 3 million have grown to almost 12 million. The consequences of an amnesty worker program could be chaotic, and there is clear risk to our homeland security. The GAO report is yet another reason added to the long list of why amnesty worker program would be a disaster for the United States. So, Madam Speaker, we cannot outsource American jobs by bringing more illegals into the United States under the banner of amnesty. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Imette St. Guillen had everything going for her. She graduated with honors from George Washington University. Upon graduation, she moved to New York City to pursue her master's degree. She was an honors graduate student at John Jay University studying criminal justice. She had great grades, great friends, and she had her whole life ahead of her. But 5 days short of her 25th birthday, in the early morning hours of February 25, 2006, Imette went with her friends to a local Manhattan watering hole. Around 3 a.m. one of her friends decided it was time to leave. But she stayed behind and later traveled to another bar down the street. It was called the Falls Bar. According to reports, St. Guillen remained at the Falls Bar until last call, where she was asked to leave. Witnesses say that she was last seen being walked out of the bar by one of the bouncers, his name Darryl Littlejohn. Seventeen hours later her abused body was found wrapped in a quilt and thrown in a marshy area in East Brooklyn. A white sock had been stuffed down her throat, her face had been sealed with duct tape, her ankles and wrists were bound with plastic ties. An autopsy showed that she had been sexually assaulted and strangled. DNA tests showed that Darryl Littlejohn's blood was found on plastic ties that were used to tie Imette's hands behind her. More circumstantial evidence links Littlejohn to this murder. So who is Darryl Littlejohn? He is a bouncer at a bar, but he is more. He is a bouncer who has been violating his parole because he stays out past 9 o'clock p.m. violating his curfew. He is also a career criminal. He grew up in Queens, amid drugs and gangs. He was first convicted of armored robbery at the age of 16, later served prison terms ranging from 2 to 4 years and then a 10-year term for armed bank robbery. His fifth stint in prison for a Long Island bank robbery was committed just after 3 months of being on parole from the previous trip to the penitentiary. His career criminal history includes seven felony convictions for armed robbery, assault, drug dealing, weapons possession and more. He was paroled in 2004 where he was sent to live with his mother. His neighbors described him as being intimidating and had a hot temper. If convicted in this case, he can add murder and rape to his long list of criminal conduct. But hopefully this time the judges will get his punishment right. Mr. Speaker, an innocent woman was brutally slain and the prime suspect that is linked to her by DNA is a former seven-time ex-convict. As a former criminal court judge in Texas, it is clear to me that the sentences were not harsh enough to begin with. Judges must understand their responsibility to punish those violent individuals that come to their courtrooms. We need to lock them up. That is why we build prisons. According to the New York Daily News, Littlejohn was formerly denied patrol with the following statement by the Parole Board. It was said: ``You are violent and out of control. Your behavior shows you are a menace to society. Your continued incarceration remains in the best interest of society.'' Additionally, according to the Boston Herald, when Littlejohn was released on his latest parole, he was to be watched by parole officers until 2007. But last Friday, officials admitted they failed to monitor even a single day of the postprison wanderings due to some clerical error. Imette St. Guillen lost her life in a grisly and gruesome murder. This crime could have been avoided, but this catch-and-release policy puts dangerous criminals and demons back on the streets. How many crimes does a felon have to commit before we learn some folks need to be behind bars indefinitely? Judges have a moral and legal responsibility to punish violent criminals and make them our prisoners, rather than us continuing to be their prisoners. And when a criminal gets to the penitentiary, keep them there. Judges need to quit living in the land of excusable conduct and justifying the menacing misdeeds of malcontents. Criminals should pay for their crimes, not victims like Imette St. Guillen. Street terrorists like Littlejohn are just as much a threat as insurgents in Iraq. Both types of terrorists are a homeland security issue, and both should be brought to American justice. Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Rita was her name. She was mad and took it out on southeast Texas. Her winds blew, the water rose, the trees fell, and the homes collapsed. To the rescue was FEMA. FEMA said, we have house trailers to help the homeless. Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been 6 months since Hurricane Rita hit, and we are still on the lookout for those house trailers. Has anybody seen them? Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have been located. All 10,000 of them have been found in the remote hills of Arkansas. But why are they there? Because I have heard Federal bureaucrats have some comical regulation that states no trailers in flood-prone areas, like the hurricane gulf coast. So the taxpayers have bought themselves 10,000 trailers with millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and they are hidden in Arkansas, I guess for safekeeping. Since Homeland Security's FEMA isn't using them, I suggest we take them down to the Texas-Mexico border, where there is not a whole lot of rain and we don't have enough detention facilities for illegals, so that when border agents capture illegals, they can house them there in these trailers until they are deported back to their homes. We got illegals, FEMA's got trailers, let's match them up together. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, a former deputy foreign secretary and ambassador at large for the rogue Taliban regime is now a ``special student'' at the elitist Yale University. According to Yale's officials, they are proud to have this Taliban student. He legally entered our country on a student visa, of all things, issued by the State Department. That seems like nonsense to me. This offensive disregard for national security is not only ridiculous, it is frightening, and it has happened before. The hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11, and who crashed into the Pentagon just down the street from us, entered the United States on, yes, student visas. What is even more incomprehensible is that Yale University is helping to educate this Taliban operative, who just 5 years ago was touring the United States for the Taliban, spreading propaganda and defending the Taliban's gospel of hate. Mr. Speaker, the Taliban is against everything freedom-loving people advocate. They advocate public torture, false imprisonment, mistreatment of women, and promotion of worldwide anarchy. Those are not accomplishments to be proud of. Yale would do well to admit students who are devoted to promoting peace and democracy, not those who so flagrantly advocate injustice, evil, and terror. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Conaway. You made several excellent points about our heritage. Reading the Constitution is certainly something that all Members of this body ought to do on a regular basis. I would hope all school teachers in this country would pick up this document, read it from time to time, and have their kids read this document. It is not very long. I have with me a pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence that many of us in this House carry with us every day. Your comment about taking an oath to uphold the Constitution: Not only do Members of the United States House of Representatives raise their right hand and swear to uphold the United States Constitution, but every elected official in this country takes that same oath. Members of the Supreme Court take it, the President takes it, every State representative, State senator, the Governor of every State. Every peace officer takes that oath, every member of a city council, every school board, every person in public service in our country takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is the only oath that most of us take while we are serving in office. It certainly is an oath that we are obliged to follow. Several years ago the world was divided between free and unfree, and we had this Iron Curtain that existed in much of the world that separated those of us who are free and those that were not free. After the great wall came down, we heard many stories about those oppressed people who lived behind the Iron Curtain and what their life was like in that political slavery in which they found themselves. Several prisons throughout the Eastern Bloc of Europe housed political prisoners, one of which was a Czechoslovakian student who had been imprisoned and sentenced to 5 years for reading from a prohibited document in that Communist nation. What he did, he found himself on the steps of Prague University. He stood there, defiant, and quoted a document from history. It went something like this: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' For reading from that document, that Czechoslovakian student went to prison. Yes, that is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, our Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence justified to the world our independence from Great Britain. It gave the reasons why we had the divine right to leave that country. It starts out, ``When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.'' That is how the Declaration of Independence starts. It gives the justification, the divine right, for an independent Nation, and, first and foremost, sets the parameters on where we get rights. As many in this body do, I from time to time talk to kids in schools, the younger the better; talk to them about America and our history, our glorious history. And I ask the question many times to students, where do you get your rights? And I hear all kinds of answers. ``My parents give me the rights.'' ``Teachers give me rights.'' ``The government gives me rights.'' More often than not, most of them say, I don't know where I get my rights. But the Declaration of Independence establishes to the world, first and foremost, where we receive those rights. So there is no misunderstanding, Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote it down, that was later signed by 54 signers of the Declaration of Independence, that ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident.'' The truth. It is obvious. That is what that means. We hold these truths to be obvious. ``That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by,'' and notice what the word is, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't say government. It says ``their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' We live in a time where in our society we don't want to talk too much about the Almighty. Or we may offend somebody. We may get sued. Our schools may get sued if they happen to mention God in the public school system. Well, they are going to have to mention the Creator if they are going to mention the Declaration of Independence, because the philosophy of who we are is that we receive our dignity not from government but from a creator, from a supernatural being. And the rights that we have come from the creator. Many times we hear about the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but for some reason we seldom say where those rights come from. Mr. Speaker, this is a big deal. It is not a minor deal. Because, you see, government does not have any rights; only people have rights. Government has power. And it gets power from us, the people. We are higher than government. We are not lower than government. And this philosophy was new in 1776. Always before, the King was most powerful or the dictator was most powerful, or the military; Caesar was most powerful, not the people. And so when our forefathers got together and started talking about this concept of freedom and independence and America, they knew that the rights that they wanted to talk about did not come from the King; they did not come from a dictator; and they did not come from some military official. They came from the Creator. Because, you see, if they came from government, that means government can take them away. And the only way government gets its power is from us, the people. So the most important phrase in the Declaration of Independence establishes that the rights that we all claim to have come from a creator. It is interesting to note when Thomas Jefferson first penned the Declaration of Independence, his first draft, the three rights that he mentioned were life, liberty and property. But after it was debated, the issue was changed from property to pursuit of happiness. You know, it is important that we understand some basic principles about our past and who we are. Tonight, Mr. Conaway and several others have mentioned Alexander Hamilton. And Alexander Hamilton understood that principle that Jefferson wrote about, that our forefathers signed. And he said in 1775, a year before Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, that sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchment or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the Divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. One of our forefathers, once again speaking to the absolute truth, that rights that we have are because of a creator. And we have that right, those rights, because of the dignity and worth of the individuals, all of them because of that. Now, government seems to be very powerful nowadays, our Federal Government does. As Mr. Conaway mentioned, I doubt if our forefathers would believe the power of the Federal Government over the people. Now, whether we think it is a good idea or not, the power is tremendous. Now, think about the different things the Federal Government has gotten itself involved in since the Revolutionary War. For example, I will give you one minor example. Where in our Constitution do we give the Federal Government the authority to decide what every toilet bowl in the United States looks like and how much water runs through it? But yet the Federal Government has assumed that authority, that power. And you can go on and on and on talking about the role of government and the power of government. But I think all of us would agree the Federal Government today is more powerful than it ever has been. And every time we give government power, I am talking about the people, because we give them that authority, because government does not have any rights, we take a little bit of liberty away from the rest of us every time government makes those decisions. And there is a difference between the government in control and having all authority, and the independent or the people having authority. I have used the example of the Iron Curtain and Communism. There are many Americans today who did not live during the time of what we call the Cold War or during the time and have watched what occurred behind the Iron Curtain. I had the opportunity back in 1987, almost 20 years ago now, to go to the Soviet Union and it was the Soviet Union at that time, a Communist nation that believed that the state was all powerful and all authority and rights went to the state. And the state doled those responsibilities and duties out to the people. But all citizens looked at the ``Almighty State.'' And I spent some time there traveling different portions of the Soviet Union. Quite an experience. Different than being here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. But some examples of that. When I went to the Soviet Union, there was only just three of us that went over there. All of us were judges. And everywhere we went, we were followed. Usually by the KGB. We were followed two ways. Sometimes we were followed with the KGB agents right behind us. He or she wanted us to know that they are there. That was about half of the time. Other times we were followed, and we knew that we were being followed, but they were where we could not see them. But every place we went, we were followed by the government. We stayed in hotels in the Soviet Union. And the way it worked was you would give your passport to someone at the end of the hall, and they would give you a key to your room. When you left your room, you gave your key back to the person in charge, and they gave you your passport back. They would also give you a slip of paper that allowed you to get out of the hotel. You needed that piece of paper and your passport to get back into the hotel. If you did not have this government document, you never got back into the hotel. While we were gone, our hotel room was search every time. And those who searched our rooms wanted us to know that the room was searched. Our phones were bugged. We could tell, when we were listening to phone, that it was constantly bugged. And the people in the Soviet Union, you know, they are good people. But you could tell by the way they walked and carried on their daily lives they were oppressed. What were they oppressed with? The power of government in their personal and private lives, because government completely controlled everything, from where they worked, to their health care system, to where they lived, to whether they could even leave the city on a little vacation. Total government control of the individuals, because government had to assert the individual's worth and had taken it on as the power of the state. And we got to talk to a few Soviet citizens. They were very skeptical about talking to Americans. They would usually tell you directions, but they never wanted to talk much about life in the Soviet Union because, you see, there is a crime under the former Soviet regime that said it is a crime to engage in anti-Soviet activity. Now, that is a very broad statement. What is anti-Soviet activity? Well, it is anything that the government says it is: talking to the wrong person, taking a photograph of a particular building, writing something in a letter, trying to get on television to say something about the government. Any of those could be engaging in anti-Soviet activity and would cause this citizen to be arrested and tried by that oppressive government. After we left the Soviet Union, we flew out on a Soviet aircraft, Soviet commercial aircraft. There were not very many of us on the plane. We are all Westerners. As soon as the pilot comes on and announces in English that we are leaving the airspace of the Soviet Union and are now entering the airspace of Finland, everyone on the airplane immediately cheered. I mean, it was spontaneous cheering. And when we were getting off the airplane in Europe, I asked this flight attendant, I said, what did you think about all of us Westerners cheering when we got out of the Soviet Union? He said, it did not surprise me, because it happens every time we fly out of the Soviet Union. So the oppression in the Soviet Union was lifted because of the people in the Soviet Union and the people in the Free World. And that is why freedom is so important, because it is not just something Americans possess or want; it is something everybody wants. The people in the Soviet Union want freedom just like those people in Iraq want freedom, and Afghanistan, because it changes the worth of the individuals and puts the individuals most important and puts government below the individuals. And that is exactly the way it ought to be. You know, the 54 signers of the Declaration of Independence, some people have said when our country got together and started, those 54 people from all walks of life, many of them very wealthy in their own right, were the smartest and wisest people that ever existed as a group in American history to formulate these concepts of freedom. And the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to establish the reasons why we had the right as a people to leave an oppressive government, Great Britain; and it was justified and outlined in the Declaration of Independence. After the Declaration of Independence was signed and the war with Great Britain was won, after several years, it was noted that freedom is always expensive, it costs the lives of other freedom fighters, because it is that important that life is put on the line for freedom. Success occurred. The Nation was free. But we did not have a basic rule of law to follow as a people. We started with the Articles of Confederation and basically the Articles of Confederation gave the Federal Government very limited authority. And so our Framers got together again at the Constitutional Convention and drafted the Constitution that we have now. There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention; 39 of them signed the Constitution. Several of them did not, one of whom was Patrick Henry, one of my heroes from Virginia: Give me liberty or give me death. He would not sign the Constitution. The reason he did not is because it did not ensure and protect individual liberty or what we now call the Bill of Rights. The average age was 42. A French diplomat that was here in the United States at the time made this comment about those people who got together to frame our government. He said that never before, even in Europe, had there been an assembly of more respectable people for talent, knowledge, disinterestedness and patriotism to a cause than these that are assembled here, talking about our forefathers who got together to frame this document called the United States Constitution. And before they started discussing this document, the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, who was in his 80s at the time, said that if the Good Lord above is concerned about a sparrow that falls out of a tree, certainly he would be concerned about a new nation at its birth, and maybe we should ask for his guidance through prayer. And when he made that statement, those men at the Constitutional Convention got together and prayed before they wrote that document. That is one reason why in this House every morning we start with a prayer, needing Divine guidance and wisdom for the decisions we make. And so when they set up this new concept it started out with the simple phrase in the Preamble that, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' So the Constitution starts out with the purpose of government and why we as a people get together and form government. Government's main duty is to protect us, protect us from domestic and foreign enemies. The Constitution established three branches of government. It established the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch; and, if you read the Constitution, established it in that order. This is part of the legislative branch. We call this the people's House. The reason we call this the people's House is because to be in the United States Congress as a Representative, you have to be elected. You cannot be appointed to the United States Congress. Even on a vacancy, there has to be an election. So all Members of this House, all 435 of us are elected somewhere in these United States, each representing about, now, 651,000 citizens. Down the hallway we have the second house, the United States Senate, two Members from every State in the United States. And when the Senate was first designed, the Senate's purpose was to represent States, and the representation of each State was put with two Senators, U.S. Senators. At first the legislative bodies of each State determined who the Senators were. And later, by a constitutional amendment, that was changed so that the people of the whole State elected their Senators. So we have the people's House, we have the United States Senate down the hallway. And the reason we call that the Senate and this the people's House is because, even in the Senate, if there is a vacancy, there can be an appointment by the Governor until there is an election. And that was put as the basis for all democracy because we represent the will of the people of the United States of America in making our decisions. Down the street is the second branch of government, the President of the United States and the Vice President, the executive branch of government. The purpose of the legislative branch is to write the law, or, I call it, write the will of the people. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what we are supposed to do, write the will of the people, enact the law and the will of the people. The President's, the executive branch, is to carry out the will of the people. Unlike the House of Representatives, we are elected for 2 years, the Senate is elected for 6, the President is elected for 4 years. The second branch of government. The third branch of government is on the other side of this House. It is across the street here. It is called the Supreme Court of the United States, the judicial branch of government. Members of the judiciary are appointed for life, at least in our Federal systems. I was not appointed for life. I had to stand for elections as a judge in Texas, and many States elect their judges, but in the Federal system judges are appointed for life. So we have, in the middle, the legislative branch; down the street, we have the executive branch; and we have the judicial branch. And I think it is worthy to note that in the Constitution our forefathers envisioned that this body, Congress, should be the most powerful branch of government because we represent the people. The people put us here. And so that was their philosophy. The second most powerful branch of government was to be the executive to carry out the law, the President. The weakest branch of government was to be the judiciary because, you see, they are not elected. They are appointed for life. And they were to interpret law to the extent that if a law passed by Congress was passed, and it violated the Constitution, it was to be overturned, and Congress was supposed to write another law that would pass muster. It is interesting to note that that symbolism of Congress being the most powerful, legislative branch most powerful, the President being the second most powerful, and the judiciary being the weakest even occurs here in this House at the State of the Union message that just happened not too many weeks ago. And if you recall, Mr. Speaker, at the State of the Union message, at the top of the rostrum the Speaker of the House of Representatives was there along with the Vice President. The Vice President is the Speaker of the Senate. The legislative branch was at the top of the podium. The President spoke from the second podium below the legislative branch. When President Bush spoke, he was below the legislative branch. And it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court of the United States sits even lower, down here on the House floor. It is symbolic of the way that our forefathers meant for government to work. Even though that was the way they established our country and the Constitution, it is not that way anymore. I think few would argue that no longer is the legislative branch the most powerful branch of government. It is the weakest branch of government. The President is still the second most powerful branch of government, the executive branch. But the judiciary is now the most powerful branch of government; because, you see, in many cases the judiciary has taken over the role of not just the judiciary but the legislative branch. When they find a law they do not like, they do more than rule it unconstitutional; they move it a step further and legislate the way things, in their opinion, ought to be. I personally think that is a disservice to our Constitution. Hopefully those nine men and women down the street will understand that their role in government was to be people who interpret the Constitution and not pass law. That is one reason myself and Judge Gohmert resigned as judges. We want to make law and pass law rather than interpret the law. So in any event, that was the way our Constitution envisioned we were to work things and how this government we have is to function. The Constitution was inadequate because it did not provide for a protection of citizens of their basic rights. And we have even heard tonight some comments about the Bill of Rights, and it is really more than a Bill of Rights that we have. It is a bill of prohibitions against government. If you go through and read each of the amendments to the Constitution, especially the first 10 amendments, you will see that the amendment's purpose is to protect us from government. It does not bestow rights on government. It bestows more prohibitions on government, on how government is to treat the people. And I will just mention one of these basic rights or amendments tonight. The first amendment. It is first for a reason. It did not just happen to show up first. The people who put that first had an absolute commonsense reason for establishing the first amendment to be first because of what it says. That Congress shall make no law, it does not seem very difficult to understand that, Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That is basically two rules that Congress, that is us, cannot violate. We cannot as a body establish a national religion. You see, the Church of England was a national religion and our forefathers, one of the reasons they came over here was because of religious persecution in Europe, England, and other places. And they did not want to uphold the national religion, and to prevent that from happening here in the United States, Congress was prevented from establishing a national religion. You notice it says ``religion.'' It does not say ``prohibition about the Almighty.'' It says ``establishing religion.'' And also Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now, the first amendment and the first phrase was first for a reason: because our forefathers wanted to practice religion and religious freedom, and they wanted government to stay out of the way of both of those. Now, I wonder whether or not we are balancing these two prohibitions. Is government allowing in our country the free exercise of religion or not? And it all comes to the interpretation of this very simple phrase. The second right and prohibition by government is Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech was second in the Bill of Rights. Or freedom of press. And you notice it does not say ``fair press.'' It just says a ``free press.'' That is what we are guaranteed. The right to have a free press, not necessarily fair, because fair is always in the eyes of the reader. In any event, the rights of freedom of speech and press were next, and then the right of us, the people, to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress. You see, these rights are first because if you do not have these, the rest of them in the Bill of Rights do not mean anything. And when this speech phrase was put here, it was put here because there were two types of speech our forefathers wanted to protect: religious speech and political speech. You see, that is the controversy. You could not say what you wanted to say about the king. You might get in trouble. And so political speech is protected. Religious speech is protected. And that is why you have the right of freedom of speech and, of course, the right of press. And a free press protects the rights in this amendment and all the others as well. And, of course, the right of the people to assemble and petition the government. So as we progress in the next few weeks, we will talk more about our Constitution in detail, hopefully getting some interest in the American public, into reading this book. Most books like this have the Declaration of Independence in it and then the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was the promise. The Constitution was the fulfillment of that promise. And it is a philosophy our forefathers had that we still are arguing and debating about tonight and debating in this House on a constant basis. It is the idea of freedom from government, or government controlling us. That is the choice we make every time we pass legislation. Every time we give government more authority, we are taking more authority and responsibility from us, the individual and the people, and willingly giving it to government. Maybe we should do that and maybe we should not. But freedom is something that is very valuable. It is, in fact, the most valuable thing that any of us as individuals have or will ever have. And that is why the Founders of our country believed and died and lost so much to be free from British rule. It is now a world we live in, where many countries are free, that raise the value and worth of the individual to its highest level and put government below the people. And in this country we must constantly be vigilant to protect the people from government, because it is government's responsibility to do our will, not our responsibility to do government's will. Our will is paramount to the government's. And the only way government gets authority is because we decide to give it authority over the rest of us. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to spend these few minutes talking about these great two documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States. And as the weeks progress, we will talk more about these truths that are self-evident, that these two documents are who we are, what we are, what we stand for, and what we will continue to stand for.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Official Truth Squad tonight is going to continue the theme that has already been addressed by three of our friends, Mr. Otter from Idaho, Mr. Bishop from Utah and Mr. Garrett from New Jersey. They have been talking about our history. They have been talking about the philosophy of America and who we are and what we are and what we stand for. So for the next few minutes we will be discussing our history, the American Revolution, the people who lived before us, what they thought, what they wrote, and what they said. I have with me tonight my friend from Texas, another freshman, Mr. Conaway from West Texas, and he is going to start out discussing our heritage and giving us some truth about who we are, what we are, and what we stand for.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for making sure that our children are safer. The days of child predators playing hide and seek are over in this country. No longer will they be able to hide in our communities and seek out our children as their prey. The national registration in this bill will help protect our children so that when child molesters leave our penitentiaries and move about from State to State, we will be able to keep up with them. As many Members of the House, I am the parent of four children, three grandchildren and two on the way. I have met with parents who have lost their children to child predators who left penitentiaries and preyed against them. Mark Lunsford and Marc Klaas both came to Washington to talk about the loss of their children to these criminals. We need to have a response, and the first duty of government, which is to protect the public and to protect our children, is the greatest cause that we can be involved in. As a member of the Victims Rights Caucus that was started with Katherine Harris and Jim Costa, we support these efforts and applaud this act.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).