Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his support of this bill. Lillian McKay by trade was a nurse; and she met her husband, Dr. Haden McKay, a doctor in Humble, Texas, and there they have spent most of their life supporting people. She is the First Lady of Humble, Texas. She has been for a number of years, and she will always be. The reason she is the First Lady is because she is always involved in the lives of people, young people, elderly people, all people. She does what she can every day to help someone else. She is the neighbor of the entire community. Both she and her husband made Humble their home in 1941. In fact, she still lives in that same limestone house that he built for her in 1941. Humble, Texas, is a small, rural town north of Houston, about 27 miles. It started out as an oil field town. Oil was struck there; and one of the landmark roads of Humble, Texas, is Moonshine Hill Road. After oil was struck there, a little oil company started called Humble Oil and Refining Company. Later they changed their name to Exxon. Humble, Texas, never chose to change their name to Exxon, Texas, however. But Lillian McKay is a great believer in people; and she was always seen going door to door, helping out neighbors, collecting for worthy causes. Humble, Texas, the small town that it is, is like most small towns. It is very political. But you would never know whether Miss Lillian was a Republican or a Democrat, because she always supported people that she thought would help the community and help the city of Humble, Texas. She is still involved to some extent in helping people who want to run for office and support them no matter what their party affiliation happens to be. Miss Lillian is a great believer in history. She loves history. She loves Texas history. So she started a museum in Humble, Texas, to preserve the oil-rich heritage of the city. Back in the days when Humble was an oil boom town, she started the museum; and she has selected numerous items to preserve history, Texas history. She has been honored by every group in the State of Texas that promotes such honors for ladies like this. So, Miss Lillian, we appreciate your service to the people of Texas, your lifelong commitment to helping others, your lifelong commitment to the community and to Humble, Texas, and to the people of Humble. I thank both Members for their help in the sponsorship of this bill.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the war, deaths, the southeast Texans, the honored, the names: PFC John P. Johnson, Houston, United States Army; Staff Sergeant Russell Slay, Humble, Texas, United States Marine Corps; Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy, Houston, Army; Corporal Tomas Sotelo, Jr., Houston, United States Army; PFC Wesley Riggs, Baytown, Army; Sergeant Keelan L. Moss, Houston, United States Army; PFC Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, Houston, Army; PFC Armando Soriano, Houston, United States Army; PFC Leroy Sandoval, Jr., Houston, Marine Corps. The volunteers, the brave, the young, the fallen, the freedom fighters, the heroes, the warriors, the band of brothers and sisters. The Americans. That's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for yielding to me. It is true, I spent a lot of time as a trial judge down in Texas, about 22 years, trying a whole lot of cases. I have had the fortune, once I came here to Congress, to meet individually with some of our members of the United States Supreme Court to discuss philosophies, certainly not to try to influence them on specific cases but to talk about philosophy, about the United States Constitution. I respect the position that they hold, but to me, this ruling is wrong. It is a misinterpretation of a simple provision in the United States Constitution. The right of property in this country, sometimes we as Americans take the right of property for granted, but I think a little history is in order. When people started coming to the United States from Europe and from England, back in those days, in the middle ages, the king or the queen owned all the land, and the king or queen would bequeath certain portions of the king's property to the nobles. The nobles would have extensive land grants, and then they would have serfs, regular folk, work that land. But the real people, the working folks, never owned the land they worked on. It belonged to the nobles and then off to the king. So when people started coming to America, they started owning their own land. It was an individual right to own property; and, today, it is still, I think, the greatest American desire to own a piece of America, own the land. Usually, we get that with a house, but it is the greatest desire that most Americans have, and more Americans now own homes in this country than ever before, the right to property. When our forefathers got together and started talking about this new government, this new country, they were influenced a lot by John Locke. John Locke took the position that all of us are born with certain rights because we are individuals. He said hundreds of years ago that man has the natural right to life and to liberty and to property, three rights that really all other rights come from, the right to life, liberty, or freedom as we call it now, and the right to property. He influenced Thomas Jefferson so much that in the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are given by our Creator certain rights, and he said they were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. Then, of course, in the fifth amendment of the United States, in our Constitution, our forefathers reaffirmed the basic rights that John Locke talked about hundreds of years ago and said that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. They went on to say in the fifth amendment, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation, a very simple statement, and it is not difficult to understand. With all due respect to our northeastern law schools, I do not think you have to go there to figure out what the fifth amendment means. It is relatively simple. You may recall in the movie ``The Patriot'' with Mel Gibson, that somewhat fictional approach to the American Revolution, how in one scene there General Cornwallis of the British empire was talking to Colonel Tarleton and telling him, if we retake America, you will have all of these lands bequeathed to you by the king, the concept being, in the eyes of the British, the land in America still belonged to the British empire. That is why the American Revolution was so important. It not only gave us life and liberty, it gave us the right to own property. So property in this country is not just available to kings and to nobles, but it is available to the rest of us. This is why this fifth amendment was put in our Constitution, to give us the right of property. The argument in the fifth amendment was the whole concept of compensation, the idea that government could take property only if it paid for it and paid the owner of the property. It was never misinterpreted until this summer to have the right of government, we are talking about city councils generally, to take your private property for private use. We are not talking about public use. We are talking about private use, take our property and make a parking mall, a parking lot out of it. No offense to Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart pays a lot of taxes. They could take my house and much of my neighbors' houses, make a Wal-Mart out of it, and they get a whole lot more tax incentives or taxes from that business than they would from the property owners. So that is the motivation to seize private property, to hand it over to other private entities for money. Mr. Speaker, it boils down to money. Too often, it often always boils down to the money trail. So the Bill of Rights certainly does not give, I think, government the authority to take private property for private use. The Constitution protects the rights of people. It does not give rights to government. Sometimes we think government has a lot of rights. Government, in our philosophy, only has the power we give it. Government is controlled by us, the people. The Constitution gives the rights to individuals, to people; and one of those rights in the fifth amendment is the sovereign right to own the land, to own a piece of America. So the Supreme Court has misinterpreted this simple provision of the Constitution and allows city councils to take land, bulldoze our houses without our consent and build a parking lot or a shopping mall. Those citizens' property is safe because it is given this authority, and I am glad to see that this House is doing something about trying to prevent any funding to allow this misinterpretation by the Supreme Court to take place. Certainly, this decision slaps in the face of our heritage. It slaps in the face of our history, our philosophy and what America is all about. Private ownership of property is vital to freedom. It is vital to liberty, and it is vital to certainly prosperity, and I think the Supreme Court has authorized land grabbing. They have sacrificed private property on the altar of greed. I think it is a big mistake. I think they are wrong. I think they violate the Constitution, and I think this is another example that the Supreme Court has lost its way in this decision and would hope that we can return to an understanding of the Constitution that was intended when it was written, an understanding that most Americans have. I want to thank my friend from Georgia for allowing me to make some comments on this 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, this error in judgment that the Supreme Court justices have made.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, this week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel in a speech in Tehran. He said, ``There is no doubt that Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of Islamic nations' fury.'' Mr. Speaker, this saber-rattling, rogue tyrant, terrorist-talking head of state and his comments are yet another example of his menacing threat to all people. Now Iran, with nuclear capability, is a real concern to not only free Israel, but to the free world. Iran's neighbors should be on careful watch. Hopefully the people of Iran will keep this firebrand, drugstore gunslinger under some control. The United States must reaffirm its commitment to the nation of Israel and to the destruction and defeat of international terrorism. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ahmadinejad needs to mind his words, because words mean something, and he should mind his manners and use some common sense in what he does. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, a nation that cannot defend its borders against an illegal invasion is a nation without national sovereignty. Madam Speaker, rhetoric rules the day when it comes to immigration. A lot of people with self-promoting agendas do a lot of talking. They have hidden motives that range from political to monetary to cultural. However, the only motive for immigration should be what is best for America, not what is best for cheap labor, not what is best for Third World countries, not what is best for obtaining more votes for the left, not what is best for any specific race, creed, or religion, but what is best for America. That should be our immigration policy. Madam Speaker, people who enter the United States must serve a purpose for the greater good of this Nation. A little history is due. Over 100 years ago, this Nation welcomed immigrants through Ellis Island in New York, where people would come from all over the world into New York Harbor. They would be seen at Ellis Island. These individuals would be examined, they would be questioned, and if this person saw, after the immigrant was examined to be healthy and ready to work in America, they were allowed to come in. That process did not take a great amount of time. Now, today, if people want to come to the United States legally, there is so much bureaucratic nonsense that it takes a long time for people who wish to become citizens or people who wish to work here or go to school here if they do it the right way, the legal way. We have all heard of the excuses and the so-called explanations for why it takes so long to allow people to come to the United States the legal way. Madam Speaker, they are just excuses; they are not reasons. I am an advocate of immigration, legal immigration. I am proud of the fact that my ancestors came from Scotland, and the hard-headed ones came from Germany. But, you know, Madam Speaker, we discriminate in this country against people who want to come here the legal way, the right way, those who want to do something for America and not to America, to the benefit of the lawless illegals who disrespect our rules, the rule of law and our Nation. Madam Speaker, the battle for the border is upon us. And I am not talking about Iraq. I am not talking about Afghanistan. I am talking about the American border. We have an invasion going on in this country. We have a colonization of our Nation by other nations, and we watch it and do very little. You know, this lawlessness on our borders breeds more lawlessness, and it is only getting worse. Last week I was on this House floor, and I invited some colleagues, especially those down the hallway, to go with me to the south Texas border. I guess they could not go because they were on their yachts sipping wine off Cape Cod and found other things that they could do better. But I spent the last weekend down on the south Texas border at a place called Laredo, Texas. And on this map here, we have portions of Texas, Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, and Laredo, Texas, is in this dark blue. That is Webb County, Texas. South of it is Zapata County, Texas. Webb County, just to give you some information, is bigger than the State of Delaware, and I spent the weekend there with the sheriff of Webb County, Sheriff Flores, and also the sheriff of Zapata County, Sheriff Gonzalez, Ziggy Gonzalez. And we found what occurs there on a daily basis is something that all Americans should be aware of. Sheriff Rick Flores, sheriff of Webb County, Texas, a place bigger than the State of Delaware, has 13 deputies patrolling the whole State, and when we went down to the border, he made sure that before we went to certain portions of the Texas-Mexico border, that we were armed with M-16 rifles, that we went with his small SWAT team that had body armor and helmets, because he said there are places on the Texas border with Mexico you do not get close to the river without body armor. Now, Madam Speaker, we are talking about the United States, being inside the United States. We are not talking about being in some foreign country. But yet our sheriffs are concerned about their safety and the safety of people who are near our southern border because of what is going on on the other side of the border. Madam Speaker, I spent some time years ago at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. You remember, that is the place where the American sector was separated from the Soviet sector. That Soviet sector looked into the grayness, the darkness, the bleakness of communism in eastern Europe. And how we had to patrol that border for America's safety. And when I was on the Texas border in Laredo, Texas, it reminded me of Checkpoint Charlie because of the violence that is occurring along our lawless southern border. Madam Speaker, Sheriff Flores, when he took us around, along with his deputies, also along with Texas Ranger Doyle Holdridge, he tried to explain to me in very simple matters that this is an American issue, this is not a partisan issue. This, as he said, is a red, white and blue issue, the importance of protecting the sovereignty of the United States against the illegal invasion of people coming across our border. And how many are we talking about in Texas alone? We are talking about 5,000 a day illegally coming into the United States. We are talking about in our country now, 11- to 14 million people who came in from Canada or Mexico illegally, without permission. And so he patrols that area. He does his regular duties, but he is concerned about three items, three things, and they all have to do with illegal activity. He is concerned about the illegal drug cartels that operate in Mexico and southern America and work their way up through the United States and to through Laredo. As you can see from this map, Madam Speaker, Laredo here is the center port in the United States. It is the busiest inland port in the United States. Every day 7,000 18-wheelers cross into the United States from this location. About that many go south as well. And they disseminate up to the Northeast and to the Midwest. That is why this is the battle for the border, because the drug cartels want to control this area. And we have got more than one drug cartel down there fighting among themselves as to who will control the border. So the first reason is for the drug trafficking that illegally comes into the United States is a concern to these sheriffs on the Texas border. The second concern is the illegal immigrants that come through that area, many of those people brought into the United States by coyotes. These are the people who, for money, make a profit off the human trafficking, bringing people into the United States illegally. And the third reason, and maybe the most important reason, is because Sheriff Flores and Sheriff Gonzalez are concerned about homeland security. They are concerned about those terrorists that wish to do us harm. The next terrorist that commits a crime in the United States probably is not going to fly over here, land at Reagan National Airport, get off the airplane and look around, do some damage. They are probably not going to do that. It is too difficult. They are just going to probably come across the southern Texas border as thousands of people do each day. So those are three reasons, Madam Speaker, that this Nation needs to have an immigration policy that works, an immigration policy that promotes legal immigration, and an immigration policy that says no to those people who wish to come here illegally. And to try to put things in perspective, let us talk about the drug cartels that come up through the southern border of the United States. Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about the problems with drugs and how it affects Americans, but we know it does, from schoolyards from the east coast to the west coast. But their port of entry, like those 7,000 trucks coming into the United States at Laredo, is right here. The drug cartels have more money, they have better electronic equipment, they have better firepower, they have better intelligence networks than our local sheriffs do. Our local sheriffs, when we were down on the border, we used night vision equipment, but that was borrowed equipment. The sheriffs tell me that on the other side of the border, the drug cartels have the best night vision equipment that can be purchased. They also have better body armor than Americans do. And not only that, the drug cartels use satellite phones, and they track our peace officers with GPS. In other words, we have got a deputy sheriff out here on patrol in Webb County or Zapata County. He uses his cell phone to make a call. The drug cartels track where he is using GPS, and they can track his cell phone and know his location. They not only know where our peace officers are, they know where they all live. They know the names of their family members. They know the routine that they take each day. You see, these drug cartels are the enemy. They are the enemy to America. And yet our sheriffs, they make do with what they have got. You know, they would like night vision equipment so they can patrol that area, night vision equipment that they do not have to borrow from the Federal Government. They would like off-road vehicles, satellite phones. They have even suggested and asked while I was down there, you think, Congressman Poe, when you go back to Washington you can get us a Humvee for our county? Now, they do not want four or five. They want one Humvee for each of these 16 counties on the Texas-Mexico border so that they can track those drug cartels. Madam Speaker, I tried to make a few phone calls this week to see how difficult that would be to obtain some used Humvee that we brought back from the war in Iraq that we are never going to use, that this country will just put somewhere and let it rust and then melt it down to steel. And the bureaucracy, the red tape just to find the person who can make that decision, was not possible. But it would seem to me, Madam Speaker, that while we fight the war on Iraq, when we bring those vehicles, even those damaged vehicles, back to the United States that are no longer going to be used by our military, why can't the Federal Government just give a few of those to these border sheriffs along this border so they can protect and serve our Nation better? But so far that cannot happen because there is too much bureaucracy involved. Madam Speaker, I mentioned the sheriffs' deputies and how they are doing a great job, Sheriff Flores and Sheriff Gonzalez. But they, too, are concerned about their own safety. We know that one of these local sheriff's departments, they have to protect their own kids when they go to school; that they use peace officers to escort their children to and from school because they are afraid of the safety of their own children. Madam Speaker, this ought not to be. You know, the drug cartels more than anything else, they have more money than our local sheriffs, because it is all about money. Follow the money trail. And in here it is a tremendous amount of money that we are talking about. The drug cartels, these are the people who, that are the runners, for lack of a better phrase, that actually bring the drugs across from Mexico into the United States. Those people who do that make $30,000 a week. That is right, Madam Speaker, just drug runners make $30,000 a week bringing that dope into the United States. You know what a sheriff makes in Texas on this border? They make $40,000 a year. A deputy sheriff makes about $22,000 a year. A Federal peace officer in Mexico makes about $20,000 a year. That is right, Madam Speaker. These drug cartels have more money; they pay their drug runners about 10 times what our local law enforcement make. It is all about money. And they are willing to do it. They are willing to take that risk because of the amount of money that is involved in illegal drug-running into the United States. We know, also, that there have been many individuals that have, for whatever reason, been trained in the past in the United States for countries south of the border that have gone over to the other side. See, they can make more money. They can make more of that filthy lucre if they work for the bad guys, if they work for the outlaws. One of those groups happens to be Guatemalan-trained forces that are now mercenaries for the cartels. Madam Speaker, this is a photograph that was taken on the Texas- Mexico border, this top photograph. It was taken with night vision equipment, borrowed, of course. This is the Mexico border. This is the Rio Grande river, and on this side is the Texas American border. Now, this photograph, you would think, maybe these are just some river rafters going down the Rio Grande river. Not so. We know now that this photograph is taken of Guatemalan mercenaries that have gone over to the other side and work for the bad guys, work for the drug cartel. They are all dressed in their camo outfits. They have obviously backpacks, probably drugs in bags in this raft. You see a person in front with his little AK-47 protecting the dope as they cross in from Mexico to the United States. This is our border. This is what takes place on our borders. And while some people in this House are so insistent on talking about the minute things that occur in this country, maybe we should be concerned about the sovereignty and invasion of our country by these outlaws that are bringing drugs into this country. The photograph below is a photograph we took last weekend. It is a difficult one to see, but you see two folks in here, down here by the river. This is Mexico on this side. Rio Grande River. We are standing on this side over here on the Texas American side. There is an individual getting ready to get into the river, come into the United States. But over here, the sheriff's department tells us this individual who has got his hand on his pistol in his holster is one of those drug cartel runners protecting his drugs. But that is just a typical scene, what it looks like, looking across the river. Now, remember, Madam Speaker, when we went down to this area of the Texas-Mexico border, we were armed. We were armed with M-16 rifles. We were armed with individuals who were from the SWAT teams of these two sheriffs' departments because you see it is not safe. And one reason it is not safe is because of the drug cartels that are bringing drugs in from other countries through our open borders. So it is important that we first secure the borders because of the illegal invasion of people who wish to not only come here illegally but to bring that cancer into the United States and sell it for a profit, these people who wish to make a profit off the weaknesses of other individuals, and I am talking about drug dealers. We also notice down here on the Texas side of the Rio Grande River where the entry places would be for those individuals who want to come in here illegally, not necessarily drug runners, but some of them were. The way they do that, Madam Speaker, many times they will cross the river, they will swim across the river without any clothes on. They put their clothes in a plastic bag and when they get across the river they dry off and then put their clothes on. Of course, they dispose of the bags and any other trash throughout that entire area. We saw numerous trash bags where people had disposed of the bags and other litter all along that Texas border, especially on those routes that come into the United States. I talked to a rancher down in Zapata County not too long ago, and he was telling me that his ranch down in Zapata County, right next to the border, is like, as he said, Sherman's march to the sea. I asked him to explain that. He said, you remember General Sherman, that Union general that invaded the South and burned everything he came across until he got to Atlanta. He said, that is what my ranch looks like in parts, where people have come in across the border into the United States illegally and they have destroyed everything in their path just to get farther inland. We are talking about American property, property rights, something that probably we ought to be concerned about, the property of Americans along our border. However, our ranchers do not have it that easy. They have been warned by the drug cartels to be their friend, because they do not want them to be their enemy. Veiled threats. Some ranchers have been promised money or they will be harmed. They say, it is either silver or lead. What that means is we will pay you to let us cross your land or there will be lead, which is a bullet. Idle threats, I do not think so. Threats to ranchers to let those drug cartels and those human smugglers come across their land, but this is the way these people must live. Sheriff Flores made a comment near the end of our trip with him and his deputies and Sheriff Gonzales. He said, our biggest concern is national security. He said these people will take money to smuggle people across our border. They will take money to smuggle drugs across our border, and they will take money to smuggle terrorists across our border. It is an issue of national security. Let me continue a little bit about how much we are talking about besides drugs. Without demonstrating all the packages of narcotics, let me just show you two photographs. These were taken by the local sheriff departments down in south Texas. This cache of weapons up here, you might think these were found in Iraq somewhere. Saddam Hussein's outlaws might have had these. Not so. This cache of weapons was found by a local sheriff department stopping a vehicle coming in, yes, to the United States from our southern border. And you see the automatic weapons at the top. You see a couple of pistols here, and then you see grenade-launching weapons at the bottom: an invasion into the United States of illegal weapons. Just a brief moment about terrorist activity and how simple it is. I mentioned 7,000 trucks a day coming into Laredo. This is no secret. You can find this kind of information on the Internet. Right here we have about six or seven hand grenades. If you look closely, you will see that the pin has been pulled from the hand grenades. All of these here are just non-detonated bombs. Each hand grenade is wrapped in a plastic. The pin is pulled. And you can put one of these hand grenades near a vehicle's engine. It will melt the plastic and thus detonate the hand grenade. These were found before they were ever used by local law enforcement down on the border. Just a simple way how terrorists can bring weapons into the United States, weapons that their purpose is to do Americans harm. So I would hope that we as a Nation understand that our first responders are the people who know the communities, and part of those people are the sheriffs and the local police agencies. While it is true I have not said much about the Federal agents that are on the border, I think we must be concerned equally as well in helping our first responders because they are in this battle too. They know the territory. They know the people, and they know who the outlaws are because most of these individuals, most of these first responders were raised in this entire area. We have 11 to 14 million people living in this country illegally. Amnesty, of course, is not the answer. We also have reports, Madam Speaker, that members of al Qaeda reside down here south of the American border in parts of Mexico. They infiltrate Mexico, of course, illegally. They assume the identity of Hispanic individuals. They learn the Spanish language; and then when time is appropriate, they come across the American border and assimilate as some down-trodden illegal immigrant into the United States. We know that is occurring, and so that is why I make the comments about those terrorists who wish to do us harm. They are going to come from south of the border. As the battle for Iraq races on, the battle for the border, the battle for Laredo continues. Let me mention what has occurred across the border from Laredo. Laredo is a little over 100,000 people, right here between Zapata County and Webb County. Across the county or across the American line into Mexico is Nuevo Laredo. It has about 400,000 individuals, at least it used to because now people are leaving. This year in Nuevo Laredo because of the violence of the drug cartels, 155 people have been murdered. Sixteen police officers in Nuevo Laredo have been murdered. We know that one of the police chiefs, recent police chiefs, 6 hours after he was sworn in as police chief of Nuevo Laredo was gunned down and he had 35 bullet holes in him, because, you see, he was not going to work with the drug cartels. We know that 44 Americans have been kidnapped out of the United States and taken across the border, and in all of those cases, Madam Speaker, not one case has been solved. Not one of those murders has been resolved. Not one of those kidnappings has been cleared. Interesting, Madam Speaker. This is the world we live in, a world that we should be concerned about. The world south of the American border. We know that Nuevo Laredo, because of the drug cartels, because of location into the United States or near the United States and where the drugs can go has become a haven for drug traffickers, a haven for gun running, and a haven for those coyotes that bring people into the United States illegally. Just to give one example, because there are numerous examples of the violence and the victims that occur both in Mexico and the United States because of this illegal drug activity: A couple of years ago there was a young teenage girl in Laredo, Texas, who met a guy from Laredo who had a Mercedes. And he had a lot of money in his pocket and he was a teenager as well. The girl's mother told her, Do not get caught up with him. He is up to no good. Stay in school. Get an education. Well, what happened was he was one of those individuals who worked for the drug cartel, but he was working on the American side; and he owed some money to that drug cartel. So one evening both of those teenagers were kidnapped, taken back across the border. They were beaten, bags were puts over their heads, and both of those teenagers were buried alive. It is just one example of what happens down on the war for the border. Madam Speaker, one thing that I have done to try to put some progress in our immigration policy is to introduce the bill requiring passports for all people who enter the United States. The 9/11 Commission and its extensive report made recommendations that the United States require passports for everyone coming into the United States from south of the border and north of the border. Now we give people a pass from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands. They do not have to present a passport. All they have to do is show up at the border, present one of hundreds of different types of documents including old baptismal records. Sometimes all they have to say is state the country that they are from and they come into the United States. This passport bill will require some documentation, that people coming into the United States, if they want to come in here legally, they have to do it the legal way. They have to have a passport, a passport with a bar card, a passport with a bar card that can be scanned so that we can record who comes into the United States. Madam Speaker, do you know we do not record the people who come across our border, the Canadian border or the Mexican border? Why is that? I do not know. Maybe it is best for Canada, maybe it is best for Mexico; but it is not best for the United States. Passports do not discriminate against any individual. They treat everybody the same way. Of course, we can ship a package from Honduras to the United States. It is recorded by UPS on a bar card scanner at least 10 times. We know the places that package went before it is opened up here in the House of Representatives. But yet we do not do that for people who come into the United States. So this passport act is nondiscriminatory, and it will require individuals to have a passport to come into the United States. Otherwise they cannot enter. Therefore, it helps businesses as well, because a person then is legally in the United States and has a legal visa with a photograph on that visa that they obtained from their government and our government. When they go to get a job, the business does not have to check Social Security cards and all these other documents. They look on that passport to see how long they can stay in the United States. So this is one step I think we should progress and look forward to having a passport for all individuals who come into the United States. Now, Madam Speaker, we have gotten some criticism about this. When I introduced the Passport For All bill, the criticism came from our northern representatives and some of our Canadian friends because they want open borders between Canada and the United States. They do not want to have to pay that $100 for a passport. Let us think about that. $100 for a passport that lasts 10 years. That is $10 a year, 80 cents a month. That is less than a cup of Starbucks coffee. So this argument that we do not want to pay the $100 is ridiculous. For our national security that is not asking too much for our Canadian friends, American, or people south of the American border. This is something we should do. We should proceed with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Some have asked, if the 9/11 Commission recommended it, why do we not have it already? It is because of bureaucracy. It is because people who do not want that recommendation enforced ignore it, and so therefore it has not occurred, and Congress is going to have to pass a law to require it. One other matter that I would like to mention about our Texas border, some have talked about the only way we can keep people out is to build a fence. I am not sure about that, Madam Speaker. I think we should at least debate that issue on the House floor. One thing that is occurring, we are finding out that there are electronic cameras on the United States side that do a pretty ample job of watching the river. The problem is when that camera spots someone coming across the river, there is no one down there in the area to go down there and stop that illegal traffic, whether it is a drug smuggler, gun runner or someone coming into the United States illegally. We need to use some common sense in immigration. And the first thing we do is to make people who want to come to the United States legally have a simple process for them to do so and use passports to do that. There are some absurdities that occur in our immigration policy, Madam Speaker, and I would like to mention a few of those. When our border agents capture people crossing into the United States from the southern border into the United States, the Texas portion, many of those individuals are not from Mexico. A lot of times we assume that all the people illegally coming into Texas and the United States are from Mexico. That is not true. We do a disservice to Mexico when we say that, because over half the people that came into the United States illegally from the south last year they were not from Mexico. They are called OTMs, other than Mexico. Over 50 percent were from some other nation other than Mexico. They are from South America. They are from Central America. They are from Asia. They are from China. They are from Europe. But they are not from Mexico. These people are called OTMs, because, you see, everybody in the world except maybe some Americans, all these people in the world know that the southern border of the United States is an open border, and you can cross here in Texas or in Arizona or New Mexico and in California. So that is why people all over the world are working their way to Mexico and coming across illegally into the United States. In any event, what happens when border agents or sheriffs capture one of these individuals? Well, if you are from Mexico, here is what happens. They are usually put in some kind of detention facility and shipped back across the border if they are caught near the border. That does not occur once they make it into the inland, but if they are captured near the border, they are taken back after they are put in some detention facility for a short period of time. If you are not from Mexico, that does not occur. They are taken to a local magistrate in one of our Federal courthouses on the border. The person is standing before the Federal magistrate. They do not live in Mexico. They are from some other Nation. So because our detention facilities are so full and we do not have near enough detention facilities, this person is released back into our country with the promise to appear in court in 6 months for their deportation hearing, and then some of them are actually moved up further into the United States by our own Federal authorities. Think about this. This is catch-and-release. We catch them and then we release them. How absurd is that? This occurs with individuals who are from Nations or Nations other than Mexico. People understand that. So much so that many times when these OTMs cross the border, once they make it to a major highway, they stand in the middle of the highway waving their hands. They want to be captured because, as soon as they are captured, they are released with that get- out-of-jail-free ticket that allows them to roam the United States for 6 months before appearing in court for their deportation hearing. This ought not to be. Not only that, Madam Speaker, 85 percent of these people never appear in court. Are we surprised? Of course not. So when people come to the United States, illegally, for whatever reason, and they are captured, they must understand that our government has the fortitude and the will to send them home, no matter where they come from. We must find the resources, use old military bases, it does not make any difference, find a place to house those individuals until their quick deportation hearing. When I say quick, it should not take 6 months. It should be resolved within a week, ship them back where they came from because they have invaded the United States. This ought not to be. Of course, we know many of them come from the Laredo, Webb County, Zapata County. Just for your information, Madam Speaker, down here on the Gulf of Mexico, we have Brownsville, Texas, on the American side and across there we have Matamoros, Mexico. It just so happens that people who are from China, the Chinese are illegally entering the United States from that area. That is the area of the country they have picked to illegally come into the U.S., and the same is true there. Once they are captured, they are released on their word to appear back in court, and many of them, most of them, do not appear. So we did not change this policy, the catch-and-release. It is no longer catch-and-release. It should be catch-and-deport and deport immediately if you are illegally in the United States. We also have policies in some of our major cities that do not make much sense, and I call these policies the sanctuary hideouts. These are laws in major metropolitan areas that prevent local law enforcement from arresting people who are in the city, in the United States, illegally. Let me give you an example. Unfortunately, this is one of the policies we have had in the city of Houston down in Texas where I am from. A Houston police officer can arrest somebody for jaywalking, but a Houston police officer cannot inquire into the legal status of a person that is arrested for jaywalking. In other words, you can be confined or arrested for jaywalking, but this peace officer cannot do anything about the fact the person is illegally in the United States, cannot even ask the question. The police officer will be disciplined. This sanctuary policy, this sanctuary hideout is a policy of our major cities. So we allow different pockets of people who are illegally in the United States, we give them sanctuary. Why do we do that? I do not know. It is not best for America. It is best for somebody else's own agenda, but it is not best for America. A police officer used to have the power to arrest somebody, find out if they are illegally in the United States, take them over to INS and INS would deport them. The local law enforcement worked very well with the Federal authorities. We should resume that policy so that we have individuals that are arrested here for one crime, they could be turned over to Federal authorities and be deported immediately, but now local law enforcement cannot even ask them the question of where they are from or they will be disciplined. Madam Speaker, this ought not to be. When a person comes to the United States, and a lot of people do, God bless them, they come here legally, we make it so difficult for those individuals to do it the right way that they are tempted to do it the illegal way. I will give an example. In my southeast Texas district down in Jefferson County, I talked to an individual that is a naturalized citizen from Mexico, came to the United States, did it the right way, proud American, loves our country. One of his sons is serving in the military, but he has got another son down in Mexico that he wants to bring to the United States, and there are ways you do that legally. It has taken him 15 years to get that second son into the United States legally. That is ridiculous. That is absurd. If we are going to let that individual in, let us let him in. If we are going to tell him no, tell him no, but make a decision. All the red tape and all the paperwork, 15 years is ridiculous. This American citizen I was mentioning to you wants his son to come here the right way. He has encouraged him not to illegally come into the U.S. We have been told that there are some people that have been waiting to come into the United States on immigration status for 20 years and have yet to hear from our immigration officials as to whether they can come in the United States or not. So we can see why people come here illegally. We also know that the administration in Mexico encourages illegal immigration into the United States because they printed up a pamphlet that I have shown on this House floor before that explains how immigrants from Mexico can illegally enter the United States and shows them where to go, where to cross the border, what to do when they are confronted by American officials, et cetera. We know that a person can purchase fake documents at flea markets, get a forged Social Security card and come into the United States illegally, and this is encouraged by other Nations. American taxpayers pay each year per taxpayer $2,700 for the cost of illegal immigration. That is the cost we pay for those people who are here illegally, $2,700 a piece. That is how much Americans have to pay. Americans pay, Americans always pay. Just some specific examples, Madam Speaker. Health care. Oh, tonight, we heard so much about the cost of health care. Over here on the other side, we heard some moaning and groaning and weeping about the cost of health care in the United States, but I will ask my friends across the aisle, why do they not address one of the costs of health care costs in the United States, and that is, the cost that we pay for people who are in the system that are illegally in the United States, obtaining health care that Americans pay and they do not pay for. It has been estimated by some health care officials that over 20 percent of the cost of health care is because of those people illegally in the United States obtaining health care that the rest of us have to pay for. That ought not to be. Why do we not want to address that issue in health care costs? Because it is political. We cannot make a political case out of health care costs. Well, maybe we should deal with the truth and the reality. We know that many illegal immigrants, when they want health care, they just show up at the emergency room, and because of our policies in this country, I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am just saying when they show up at the emergency room they are taken care of. Of course, emergency room treatment is the most expensive treatment in health care, but that is where those individuals go. The rest of us pay for it. Maybe we ought to be sending some of those bills down south of the border and letting those other countries pay for the health care costs that we are paying for, that health care cost that their citizens are taking from the rest of us. Something else we have heard a lot about in recent weeks is education and the cost of education in the United States. It costs a lot of money, not only with your local schools up through the 12th grade, but individuals who wish to go on to college. I had four kids and I know the expense of education. All of them have finished college but one. One is still in college, but let us talk about education. People in education tell us that part of the education costs is because of people who are illegally in the United States that we educate free. Let me explain that to you. Let us use this example. Let us say I decided to go to France, and some of the things I have said about the French government, they probably would not let me in legally. So I would have to sneak into France and I am going to take my whole family with me. So I sneak into France. I take my four kids. I show up someplace and say educate all of us and educate us in the English language because we do not speak French. If I did that, you would think that was absurd. Of course, the French government would not let that happen, would they? No country in the world would let that happen. They would get rid of me first. Second, they sure would not let me go to school and would not pay for it or educate me in English or Texan, whichever, but yet a person can come to the United States, show up to one of our schools, take their kids there, and we educate them because we educate everybody that is in this country. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I just say we do it. We educate them in their language, and yet the rest of us pay for that. So maybe we ought to reevaluate the cost of education, the cost of medical health care in light of the fact that it costs Americans so much to pay for the education and medical expenses of people here illegally. Let me talk one more thing about education. I mentioned I have four kids and went to college. One of them is still in college working on a Ph.D. She will finish it, God bless her, but we have a policy in most State universities that if you are from the State that you go to school in, you pay in-state tuition. You go to one of our major universities, you live in the State of Texas, you pay in-state tuition. But if you from Kansas, let us use Kansas, and you come down to Texas, well, you pay out-of-state tuition because you are not from around here. You are from Kansas so you pay out-of-state tuition. Let us say you come from a foreign country and you have applied for an education visa. You came here to the United States the right way and the legal way. You got admitted to one of our good universities in Texas. Well, you pay out-of-state tuition because you are not from Texas; you are from somewhere else. But if you are illegally in the United States and you are illegally in Texas, you can apply to one of our State universities. If you get admitted, you pay in-state tuition. So we discriminate against Americans from other States. We discriminate against other citizens and other Nations who come here the right way, to the benefit of people who just show up illegally in the United States. This ought not to be. This is so ridiculous that there are some places in the United States that illegal immigrants can get State grants to go to college. That means they go free. I think maybe those State grants ought to go to citizens. They certainly should be considered ahead of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants ought to be considered before illegal immigrants. With the competition so tough in getting into our universities, all of them throughout the United States, some of these illegal immigrants are knocking American citizens, American kids that are just average students, out of a chance to go to college. Maybe we ought to reevaluate this policy of favoring illegals to the detriment of Americans. For a long time I was a judge in Houston, Texas, 22 years. I saw about, oh, 25,000 criminal cases, tough cases, everything from stealing to killing, rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, child abuse, capital murder and everything in between. During that time, and most recently especially, I dealt with numerous cases of people who were from some other country than the United States, most of whom were illegally in the United States. It is estimated that about 20 percent of the people, 20 percent of the people incarcerated in the United States in our State prisons, our jails and our Federal penitentiaries are illegally in the United States to begin with. What that means is the criminal justice system, which we pay for, Americans pay, Americans always pay, part of the reason it is so expensive is we have got people in the system who are illegally in the United States to begin with. So we pay for that system for those individuals. But to carry it a little bit further, to show you how we do not follow through with enforcement of our laws, if I would send a person to prison that was convicted of a crime in Texas, sent him off to the Texas State penitentiary, you would think when they get out of the penitentiary, we would have a border agent waiting there at the gate to pick him up and take him back home, wherever they came from, whether they were legally or illegally in the United States, but that does not happen. What happens is when a person finishes their time in the penitentiary. They are taken back to the city in which they were convicted and released back in our community. So here we have a person illegally in the United States, commits a crime against someone in the United States, goes to our State penitentiary, does time in our pen. When they get out, rather than just automatically deport them, send them back home, wherever they came from, we release them back into the community. This ought not to be. So we have to deal with the absurdities in our immigration policy. We have to be concerned about the illegal immigrants that come into the United States. We must expect and demand that those people who want to come here come here the right way. There is a reason they did not come here the legal way. Maybe we ought to find out what those reasons are. The rule of law must be enforced. Madam Speaker, lawlessness on the border breeds more lawlessness, and that is why it is increasing. That is why the drug cartels are doing what they are doing, bringing drugs into the United States to do harm to the rest of us. That is why those coyotes, those human smugglers, are bringing people into the United States for money, and that is why those terrorists who wish to do us harm, when they come to the United States, they will come the illegal way as well. We must be serious about enforcing the rule of law, enforcing what is best for America. About 100 years ago this statement was made: ``In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room but for one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have but room for one language here, and that is the English language, and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyalty to the American people.'' This was said by President Theodore ``Teddy'' Roosevelt in 1907, a great believer in immigration. An immigrant, a person who wanted people to come to the United States the legal way. Words of wisdom, maybe something we ought to listen to. Madam Speaker, we must win the battle for the border, we must win the battle for sovereignty, and we must win the battle against lawlessness that surrounds our country. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in the early morning hours of this past weekend, I accompanied Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo ``Sigi'' Gonzalez, Jr., his SWAT team and posse of deputies who were patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border in south Texas. Every day Sigi leads his small 24-member force into the daily battle to protect Zapata County from the invasion of drug lords and human smugglers. Lots of drug money, filthy lucre, as I call it, fund these dangerous drug organizations and human smugglers that lurk across the Rio Grande River. These outlaws have better guns, better vehicles, better electronic surveillance equipment than the good guys. They even track our peace officers with GPS when they use their cell phones. These drug demons who bring narcotics into the United States make $30,000 a week. Sheriff Gonzalez makes about $40,000 a year. Sheriff Gonzalez is an unwavering patriot and an outstanding Texas lawman. He is defending America against illegal invaders and fighting the war against vicious, violent drug cartels that threaten our home and our country. He and his dedicated deputies need resources and funding to help fund the war for the border. Our homeland is worth protecting. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, this past weekend I traveled to the United States-Mexico border and spent time patrolling the Rio Grande River with Sheriff Rick Flores and his deputies of Webb County, Texas. Sheriff Flores is a determined lawman. He is fighting invasion of illegal immigration and the war against the dangerous, violent drug cartels that are slithering into the United States. Flores has only 13 deputies to patrol a county bigger than Delaware. In the tense border towns like Laredo, Rio Bravo and El Cenizo, the war between the drug cartels is waging and getting more dangerous every day. These drug outlaws have more money, extra manpower, better electronic equipment, a better intelligence network, and better firepower than the sheriff and his posse. The sheriff needs Humvees, body armor, off-road vehicles, satellite phones, GPS systems and much more to fight this battle against drug cartels and human smugglers. Madam Speaker, Sheriff Flores has a passion to protect Texas and all of America. Sheriff Flores put it best when he said protecting our borders is not a partisan issue, it is a red, white, and blue issue. Madam Speaker, that is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, every day thousands of packages travel throughout the world. United Parcel Service ships and tracks packages from places far and wide, and these packages are kept up with a simple bar code. These packages are scanned at every stop they make when they enter or leave a building, or, when they are loaded on to trucks, ships or planes, they are scanned. From when a package leaves its destination, let us say in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, until its ends up here in its final destination in Washington, DC, it is scanned at least 10 times and tracked with almost up-to-the-minute data on where it has been and where it is going. Mr. Speaker, millions of people cross our borders every day. We do not even record who enters our Nation. A border agent at a port of entry in south Texas just looks into the vehicle and may or may not examine papers, and waves the passengers in. We must require the machine-readable bar code passports to enter the United States. It will add no measurable amount of time. We take the time to record letters and packages; now we must start recording foreign citizens who enter the United States. It is an issue of our national security.

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and prosecutor in Texas, I spent most of my life enforcing the law. I know firsthand the cost of having laws on the books that are not enforced. To make law, whether it is on the State level or the Federal level, and then wink and ignore those who break the law is to live a lie. A government that tolerates law breaking surrenders its integrity, it surrenders its credibility, and it surrenders its self-respect. And right now, Mr. Speaker, America's immigration laws are not working. They are not even enforced. We must secure the borders and reduce the number of people residing in the Nation illegally. And, of course, amnesty is not the answer to this. Those people here illegally have violated the law, and giving them amnesty is rewarding them for breaking the law. As a judge for 22 years, I never once gave a person amnesty because they got away with breaking the law for a long time. Those who have broken our laws must find themselves penalized, not rewarded, for the disregard for the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, we have anywhere between 11 and 14 million people here in the United States that are here illegally, and we cannot reward them for breaking the law. Many of them are here because several years ago this country adopted a plan, a plan that has not worked, and that is the plan of amnesty: Tell those people that are here it is okay, you can stay. And now we have encouraged people from all over the world to come to the United States illegally. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am a supporter of immigration, a supporter of legal immigration. I am proud of the fact that my heritage is from Scotland and from Germany. But in this country we have now taken the policy of discriminating against people who want to come here legally to the benefit of lawless illegals. I will give you an example. In my southeast district in Texas I represent numerous individuals who have come to the United States legally, obtained citizenship, and I recently talked to an individual who was from the nation of Mexico and became a citizen of the United States, and he has been trying to bring the rest of his family to the United States legally. He has a son that he has been trying to bring to this country legally for the last 15 years, Mr. Speaker. And yet because of bureaucracy, red tape, and incompetence, that has not been granted. He wants to do the things the right way, the legal way, and he has discouraged his son from just merely crossing the border illegally like 5,000 people a day do on the southern Texas border, come into the United States illegally by walking across our border. We have developed a policy that is no policy. We expect our border agents to patrol the vast thousands of miles from Texas to California. And when they actually capture someone coming into the United States, here is what happens, Mr. Speaker: They are arrested, they are taken to a Federal magistrate, they are told that they are going to have a deportation hearing eventually. But the detention facilities are so crowded that over 90 percent of them are released on their word to show up for their deportation hearing 6 months away. This defies common sense, the idea of this catch and release policy. Capture the people illegally coming into the United States, take them to court, and tell them: If you promise to come back for your deportation hearing, we will have a hearing in 6 months to determine whether you get to stay or you must leave. Are we not surprised that most of them do not come back for their hearings? This defies common sense, it wastes time, and it does not work to solve any problem with our immigration, or, shall I say, our lack of immigration policy. And just so it is clear, Mr. Speaker, we now know that over 50 percent of the people illegally coming into the United States from the southern borders are not from Mexico. They are from all over the world. They are from China, they are from South America, they are from Europe, but they are not from Mexico. And the reason? Every country in the world knows the United States has open borders, that we do not protect our dignity, we do not protect our sovereignty. So people are coming into the United States illegally, over half of which are from other countries other than Mexico. I will give you an example. Recently we had an individual arrested by the name of Samir Abdoun from Algeria. He was caught entering California from Mexico with a French passport. He was released with that summons to appear in court for his deportation hearing, and of course he never showed up for that hearing. He, like many thousands of other people in the same situation, assimilated into the United States. Three years later, he was arrested on September 22, 2001, when it was learned that he had met for coffee several times with two of the hijackers that took part in the attacks on our country on September 11. Finally, Somar was deported last year. This catch-and-release policy, where we spend the time to catch those few people that come across illegally and release them on their word to come back to court, simply does not work. We obviously need detention facilities for these people. We obviously need quicker hearings. It should not take 6 months to have a deportation hearing. They should happen within that week. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have other policies that defy common sense in our immigration lack of policy. One of those is the sanctuary policy where many cities in the United States have taken the position that they will not arrest people in their city that are there illegally. They will not help the Federal Government arrest those individuals. Let me give my colleagues an example. Many police agencies cannot inquire as to the status, the legal status of an individual that they arrest. One of those cities unfortunately is the City of Houston. In the City of Houston, if a police officer arrests somebody for let us say jaywalking, that individual can be fined for jaywalking, but the police officer cannot inquire as to the legal status of that individual and turn them over to the Federal authorities if they are here illegally in the United States. Why do we enforce the jaywalking laws, why do we enforce the traffic laws around the Capitol with all of the cameras and the red lights, why do we enforce those laws, but yet we do not enforce the basic rule of law protecting the dignity of the United States? And we do not deport those individuals that police officers know are here illegally because they cannot even turn them over to the Federal authorities. Mr. Speaker, there are ways to beat the United States and the United States system. What I mean by that is a policy apparently perpetrated on this country by the country of Mexico. I have here a pamphlet that is published by the government of Mexico that explains to people who want to come to the United States from Mexico illegally how to come to the United States. Part of this I have blown up on this chart. It explains, this pamphlet explains to Mexican nationals where to cross into Texas so they are not caught, what to do if they are confronted by a border agent, how to deal with coyotes, those are the people for money that illegally bring people into the United States; and where is the best place to cross into the United States. Mr. Speaker, the country of Mexico is exporting its problem and making it our problem, and this is something that ought not to be. Of course, there are other ways to defy the law, the rule of law. Before a person illegally comes into the United States, before they cross the border, there are flea markets, places where an individual can obtain illegal, forged American Social Security cards, obtain other forged documents such as green cards to come into the United States, and assimilate among the rest of us. We have to remember, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that Social Security cards are not identification. They serve the purpose of retirement. They do not serve the purpose of identification, but yet that is what it is used for. The problem continues on the southern Texas border, the other borders that border Mexico, where individuals come across to receive health care, not at their expense, but we pay for it. One way is many individuals come across the border, the individual is pregnant, goes to one of our emergency hospitals, our emergency care is tremendous, and then grants that individual of course permission to come in. A baby is born, that baby becomes a United States citizen, and then the whole family then becomes the problem of the United States. Individuals come here to receive that free health care because we do not turn anybody away. So maybe the United States needs to start sending a bill back to those countries and expecting them to pay for the health care that we pay for that they refuse to pay for in their own country. We have heard a lot, Mr. Speaker, today on this floor on both sides talking about two important issues that are expensive to Americans. One of those is health care. Oh, we heard on and on and on today about the costs of health care, what we are going to do about it. But one thing we do not want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is part of the reason health care costs are going up in this country for Americans is because we have people that are receiving health care at the expense of the rest of us. And those are people who are in the United States illegally that go and receive at our hospitals that free health care; free to them, expensive to us. We now know that approximately $2,700 a year each American has to spend for the health care of people who are illegally in the United States. I will repeat that again. It costs each American taxpayer about $2,700 a year of their money to pay for the health care of somebody else that is illegally in the United States. Those Americans, as we heard tonight from that side and this side, may not even have health care benefits. This ought not to be. Mr. Speaker, we also now know that on the southern border of Texas, that there are reports that individuals who wish to do us harm, we call those people terrorists, are assuming the identities of Hispanic individuals. They are learning Spanish, they sneak into the United States as the downtrodden, illegal immigrants, and they set up cells, networking cells to eventually do us harm. Because, you see, terrorists understand, like everybody else in the world, that we have open borders, that you can sneak into the United States and, once you are here, you can assimilate into the entire population. So it is a cost factor for Americans, illegal immigration. It is also an illegal issue. But, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue regarding homeland security. The next terrorist that does us harm is probably not going to fly into the United States, land over here at Reagan National Airport, and come do us harm. They are probably going to just walk across the border, either the Canadian-American border, or the Mexican-American border. We know that most of the 9/11 hijackers that did us harm, that is exactly what they did. They came across the Canadian border and assimilated into the United States. Mr. Speaker, as the battle for Iraq races on, the battle for Laredo has begun. I say that because Laredo, Texas, the largest inland port in the United States, is across the Rio Grande River from Nuevo Laredo, a city of 400,000 individuals in Mexico. This weekend I plan on going down to the border of Texas, Laredo, Zapata County, I will be there with a Texas Ranger and some of the local sheriffs and eventually with the border agents to view that situation. We know what is taking place in the battle for Laredo and Nuevo Laredo. We know this year that 135 people were murdered, 44 Americans were kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo; 7 policemen were murdered. The police chief, the new police chief that was recently made police chief, lasted about 6 hours after he was sworn in, and then he was gunned down with 35 bullets shot into his body. Nuevo Laredo has become a haven for drug traffickers, a haven for gun-running, and a haven for human trafficking into the United States. Because this is an example of where failure to protect the integrity of our borders encourages illegal conduct. That illegal conduct includes those people that wish to make money off the weaknesses of other individuals, and I am talking about those drug dealers. They are bringing that cocaine, that marijuana into the United States from our southern borders. It disseminates throughout the United States. We know that it is a location for gun-running, people who wish to bring firearms illegally into the United States. And we also know that that is where those coyotes, those individuals for money charge other individuals from other nations to come into the United States illegally. Mr. Speaker, many times we hear from people who think they know about the problem of illegal immigration. Some of those people are, for lack of a better phrase, those northeastern elites who think they have the answers to all the problems. I would like to invite those people who spend their time out on their yachts near Cape Cod to come down to Texas with me this weekend and go to Laredo and see the problem, the real problem of what illegal immigration does to our country. The border security is an issue that affects all Americans. I have discussed with many of the property owners that live along our Texas border how illegal immigration affects it. One rancher in Zapata County told me that it was like Sherman's march to the sea, that Union general who invaded the South and burned everything in his path. He said, that is what it is like. They are coming onto my land, destroying all the land, all the property, stealing everything they can get their hands on, because this is the path into the United States. Property rights are something that maybe we ought to talk more about, how our Federal Government has the responsibility to protect the dignity of property rights of all Americans. Recently, we had an individual by the name of Luis Posada Carriles, he was a Cuban anti- Castro militant who was taken into custody in my home State of Texas for immigrant violations. He is wanted in Venezuela for allegedly blowing up a Cuban plane and killing 70 people on that airplane. This alleged terrorist told American authorities he easily crossed the U.S.- Mexican border in the car of a smuggler, hopped the bus to Miami, and even evaded arrest by U.S. immigration agents by claiming he was a forgetful old man and lost his identification. This is typical, this is scary. It is also proof, Mr. Speaker, how easily it is for a terrorist with plans to harm others can get into the United States. This is a serious matter of homeland security, and it must be fixed. Our borders are out of control, and securing our borders is the first step in any serious immigration reform policy. So what are we going to do? Well, just today, I have introduced a bill called the Passport Security bill. It is a simple bill that requires all persons entering the United States that try to come here legally to have a passport. Mr. Speaker, if you come to the United States and you are from Canada or from Mexico or from one of the Caribbean islands, you do not have to have a passport to get in. You can use any type of document that is acceptable; everything from a birth certificate to a baptismal certificate. Some of our border agents have to be so versed in up to 500 documents from foreign countries before they can let a person come into the United States. It makes it very easy to forge those documents, to come in here illegally when you are trying and pretending to come in here in a legal manner. So all nations in the world basically require passports to enter their country. We do not do so, with the exceptions that I mentioned. So it is time for us to require a passport. A passport does not discriminate. It is the same document used for every individual. I have talked to numerous individuals who are concerned about border security, and they tell me, let us go to passports. Passports do not discriminate. It has a bar code that is in a passport, and it is a universal form of entry into any country. It even could be used by our businesses who have to now become policemen to determine whether or not the person coming into their business that wants a job is here legally, and they check the Social Security card, they try to check their birth certificates, all the documents they have; they do not have to check any of that any more. All they have to have is a passport. If they enter the United States legally, they will have that passport when they go and seek employment as a person trying to legally come into the United States. A passport is the gold standard for entry into all countries, and it is time that we require passports. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission, in its extensive report, stated that passports are necessary for entry into the United States. But here we are, we still do not have passport requirements. Why is that? It is because of bureaucracy at the Federal level that does not implement the 9/11 Commission's report. So that is why I have filed this bill, to require a person to show a passport when coming into the United States. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, people who wish to come into the United States, for example, from Canada, do not even have to show documentation. All they have to do is profess that they are a citizen of that nation. The same is true of Americans who wish to reenter the United States. For example, one of my staff members recently went to Mexico over the August recess, and when she entered Mexico, she was waved through. She was not even asked for identification. But more importantly, when she reentered the United States, the border agent simply looked into the vehicle which had several passengers and asked, Well, are all of you all American citizens? Someone replied yes and they were passed into the United States without any search, without any identification. So our borders at border crossings must be protected, and the border between border crossings must be protected. It is a homeland security issue. Some people have discussed the issue of having a fence to protect the southern border. That is at least worthy of debate on this House floor. If we are going to get serious about protecting our borders, we should at least discuss the issue. Earlier I mentioned one of the costs that is imposed upon Americans for illegal immigration, and that is health care. Some say that health care costs in the United States, 20 percent of health care costs are because people are in the system, illegally in the United States. Now, let us go to the second topic most talked about on this House floor regarding costs, and that is education. Almost every day on this House floor we hear the talk about, oh, the expense of education in the United States. And it is expensive. It is expensive when your kids are in public school all the way through high school. And you want to talk about expensive, wait until they try to go to college and see how expensive it is. I have four kids in college, and one of them is still in college. It is expensive, education is in the United States. But all of the talk that we hear about the cost of education, no one wants to talk about the fact that there are people in the system getting an education and Americans are paying for it, once again the people who are illegally in the United States. Some experts say it is up to 22 percent of education costs re because people are in the system that are benefiting from it, but not paying for it. You know, we have a policy in this country. If you are here, however you got here, legally or illegally, you are going to get an education at the expense of the rest of us. And not only that, you are going to be educated in your own language. Now, think about that. If we went to a foreign country like France illegally, sneaked into the country, would we have the nerve to go to one of their public schools and demand to be educated not only for free, but in our own language? Of course not. That is absurd. But yet we do this in our country because it is the policy of this country. Regardless of whether it should be or should not be, it is costing Americans; and Americans have to pay for this expensive education for those who are in the system and do not contribute to it. Let me give you some examples of that that go to higher education. Let us say a person from Texas wants to go to Kansas to school. Well, Kansas charges that Texas student out-of-state tuition. Why? Because they are not from Kansas. Well, that is all right. Most States have that law. Let us say a person from a foreign country legally comes to the United States, legally wants to go to Kansas and get an education. And they are admitted on an education visa. They go to Kansas. They pay out-of-state tuition because they are not from Kansas. Makes sense. But take the third example of a person illegally in the United States in Kansas. They get admitted, first of all, to one of their universities and they pay in-state tuition. That ought not to be. We discriminate against American students. We discriminate against people legally coming into the United States to get an education, to the benefit of people who are illegally here; and in some States people illegally in the state that go to colleges get admitted into colleges, receive State grants. Maybe those grants ought to go to American citizens. And now with the competition of higher education so stiff, in some cases Americans are denied entry into a university to the benefit of someone who is admitted because they are illegally in the United States. Once again, this defies common sense. So the two examples, health care costs, education costs. Part of the reason is because there are people here who have benefited from it and not contributed to it. And the third example that I would like to use is the cost of the criminal justice system. I was a judge for 22 years in Houston, Texas. Heard about 25,000 felony cases, that is serious crime, everything from stealing to killing. About 20 percent of the people that I saw were in the United States illegally now. Think about that. First of all, they are here illegally. They commit another crime. When convicted, they are sent off to one of our State penitentiaries. Of course, Americans pay for that system. Americans pay for the criminal justice system. We pay for their incarceration. Then when the person serves their time for whatever, robbery or murder, you would think that the law in this country would say that person illegally in the United States that commits a felony and goes to the penitentiary, we would deport them back where they came from. But that is not what we do. We bring them right back to the county in which they were convicted, and we release them. Why do we do that? Because there is no cooperation by law with the State authorities and Federal authorities on people illegally in the United States and whether they should be deported after they have served their criminal sentence. So that costs us as well. And some likewise estimate is 18 to 19 percent of our criminal justice costs are because we have people in the United States illegally here committing crimes and having to serve their time. And we pay for that. So these are some examples of issues that the American public has to deal with and deal with immediately. It is necessary that we as a people come to grips with the issue of illegal immigration and decide what position we are going to take, whether we are going to take a stand for the rule of law or whether we are going to ignore the law. It would seem to me that the first duty of government is to protect the sovereignty of the Nation, protect the identity of the borders of our Nation. It just seems to me that is what most countries do. But we have chosen not to do that, for whatever reason. I do not know the reason. But now the time has come for us to enforce the rule of law, enforce border security. It is the right thing to do. It is not the right thing to do to tell people who come here illegally, that is okay. That is the wrong thing to do. Mr. Speaker, it is a national security issue. We know that there are terrorists among us. We know they wish to do us harm. Why do we encourage that conduct by having no national policy that enforces the rule of law on our borders? Everybody wants to come to the United States. I do not blame them for that. I mean, everybody wants to come here, but everybody cannot come to the United States. Everybody cannot live in the United States. So what are we going to do about that? Well, let us have a policy. Let us have a plan. Let us have a plan that works. Let us have a plan that encourages people to come here legally so it does not take 15 years to come into the United States legally as in the example I mentioned to you. And let us have also a plan that enforces the rule of law and does not encourage illegal conduct, but tells people if you want to come to the United States, do it the right way, do it the legal way or stay home. You know, we all took oaths as public officials to uphold the Constitution, to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I think part of our obligation is to enforce the rule of law and the sovereignty of the United States. We call this place the land of the free and the home of the brave, and rightfully so. This very day, we have some of our bravest Americans halfway across the world protecting another country called Iraq. It is important that we in this country care more about Americans than we do about people who are illegally from foreign countries who come into the United States. So the line is drawn in the sand, Mr. Speaker. And as I mentioned, the battle for Laredo has begun. The battle for our sovereignty is upon us. We will either protect our country or we will not. We will either surrender or we will refuse to surrender. And we cannot surrender our borders to those people who invade our country illegally. It is an invasion. It is a colonization of the United States, and it is illegally being done right under our eyes. That is just the way it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, tattoos, lingerie, Ozzie Osbourne concert tickets, gambling, cruises, exotic dance clubs, prostitutes, and new sports cars. Members may ask what this list is. No, it is not Larry Flynt's Christmas wish list. These are examples of purchases made on Federal credit cards by Federal employees for which American taxpayers picked up the bill; they always do. Today I have introduced the Government Credit Card Sunshine Act. This act is simple. It requires every government credit card bill to be posted on the government Inspector General's Web site within 15 days of its use. It also states that Federal employees whose credit card abuse is more than $500 shall face immediate dismissal, be forced to repay the bill, and sometimes return the items. This serious scandal is stealing and is unacceptable behavior. We are now going to hold Federal employees accountable for ripping off America. So no more abusing the Federal credit card at the taxpayers' expense; otherwise, pack your toothbrush, you are out of here.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, during the second week of December, the 2005 White House Conference on Aging will take place in Washington, D.C. This is a once in a decade event where delegates from across the United States gather to make policy recommendations to the President and Congress on issues of importance to aging generations. I had the privilege of nominating Betty Lee Streckfuss, RN, as a delegate to the 2005 White House Conference on Aging, and I am proud to say that she will be in attendance as the delegate from the Second Congressional District of Texas. Betty has a long and distinguished background in healthcare. A former Head Nurse of the Acute Care Pediatric Unit at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, TX, Betty is currently serving as founder and associate partner of Streckfuss and Associates, a Texas based medical consulting endeavor specializing in clinical policies, procedures and regulatory issues. She is also secretary of the Houston/Harris County Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council and a member of the Texas Silver Haired Legislature. I commend Betty's commitment to healthcare. I have no doubt that her experience, insight, and sincere desire to advocate on behalf of our aging Americans will serve our community well at the 2005 White House Conference on Aging.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, people die because of domestic violence: Rocio Alvarado, 27, Houston. Ella Marie Broussard, 26, Houston. Ericka Cavazos, 28, Houston. Marivell Garcia, 22, Baytown. Ebony Johnson, 22, Houston. Keisha Joseph, 34, Houston. Florentina Matamoros, 31, Houston. Maria Navarro, 37, Houston. Gloria Ann Ozuna, 18, Houston. Ziba Poursheykhi, 44, Houston. Susan Soogrim, 44, Baytown. Amanda Terlouw, 25, Houston. Prudencia Vallejo, 62, Houston. Khadija Williams, 31, Humble. Sheila Marie Davis, 35, Beaumont. Joyce Volrie, 62, Beaumont. Madam Speaker, these victims were murdered by their intimate partner, spouse, or boyfriend this very year. Domestic violence is not just a family issue but a criminal issue, a health issue, an American issue. Madam Speaker, America must be concerned about what takes place in our families and the murder of spouses in the domestic violence situation. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, this year in January, I had the honor to go to Iraq for their first elections in history for a democracy. Iraq is where the world began, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Myself and Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut were the two Members of Congress that were in Iraq on election day. You remember, Mr. Speaker, those were the times when the skeptics and the terrorists said, Oh, there won't be an election. The Iraqis won't do it. They won't go and vote. Yet they did. Sixty-one percent of those people went and voted. While there, I learned a lot from the Iraqis. I learned, first of all, they are a very proud people, that they are somewhat underestimated about their ability to have and believe in a democracy. I also learned that those people are just like us and all people in the world, because, Mr. Speaker, down in our soul, where we are made, every person has the yearning to be free. The Iraqis are no different than Americans or other peoples in the world. I also learned, Mr. Speaker, that they will not be intimidated by the terrorists. The terrorists in January told the Iraqis that if they go and vote, they will be killed. They were told that if they were seen with that purple finger, they would be killed. Yet the Iraqis voted. They willingly stuck their finger in that inkwell and stained their finger for several days. I remember here on the House floor where many of us stood when the President of the United States in his State of the Union message talked about those Iraqi people and how we stood defiant as well as those people with our finger in the air, showing that freedom will prevail and rule the day. Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting year for the Iraqi people. They started a country in January with their Parliament. They then elected a Prime Minister, a President. They wrote a constitution, they voted on it, and they have all done it in less than 10 months. Remarkable. We sometimes forget history. We forget our own history that it took us 13 years after 1776 to get our Constitution. In fact, only nine States ratified it at first, and the two big ones, New York and Virginia, were late comers to the table. In fact, North Carolina did not ratify it until the next year and Rhode Island took 2 more years to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Not all Americans supported the Constitution. One of my favorite Revolutionary War people, Patrick Henry, did not believe that the new Constitution should be ratified. He believed in a stronger State instead of a Federal Government. We sometimes forget our own history and we sometimes sell the Iraqi people short as many people have done this year. Those people, the Northeast elites and the west coast Hollywood leftists, said it would not happen, that the Iraqis would not have a government this year. But they did. Maybe those folks seem to be somewhat disappointed that the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shiites all came to the table and voted for this Constitution. Those Northeast elites and those west coast Hollywood leftists were the same ones who said that we couldn't help Germany and Japan in World War II. We fought those two countries, those two regimes of totalitarian states, but the United States went in and set up democracies in both of those countries. Now those countries are not only free but they are world powers and they are our allies. And what if it happens? What if Iraq and Afghanistan do the same thing that Germany and Japan did, become world powers, become democracies and, more importantly, become free and our allies? Mr. Speaker, democracy is the enemy of terrorism and freedom is the enemy of anarchy, and the people are the enemy of dictators. The United States in its history has gone to war numerous times, but we go to war not to conquer but to liberate. We go to war not to enslave but to set free. And so our troops that I met with in January and the troops that are serving there today are serving a purpose in Iraq. I have talked to them and they are proud that they are able to represent the United States and fight the war on terror. But they are also proud of the fact that they are setting up a democracy in that land far, far away. Mr. Speaker, history will look favorably on our role in Iraq and Afghanistan. History will record what amazing people these Americans were. It will be a good time in history for the United States and the Iraqi people. Mr. Speaker, freedom once again has ruled the day.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, when the relentless rain and howling winds of Hurricane Rita hit southeast Texas, the agriculture industry took a beating. Texas rice farmers were already having a tough year because of unpredictable weather, increased fuel and fertilizer costs, and the last thing they needed was a visit from the lady of the gulf. Rita's wrath ravaged rice fields and caused power outages in the mills where harvested rice was being dried. The crops in the field just weeks away from the second harvest took a beating. Bill Dishman, Jr., a rice farmer in my district, owns a farm in the small town of China, Texas. He figures about one-fourth or more of his second crop, that is the one rice farmers count on to make a profit, was lost. Almost every southeast Texas rice farmer suffered damages from this storm. Following the storm, I had the opportunity to travel to southeast Texas with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and assess the damage and speak to the local rice farmers. Their concerns were serious and their outlook was grim. Texas rice farmers like Bill Dishman and Ray Stoesser need to remain on their combines and the rice needs to grow more, and we need more markets like Cuba. These are tense and troubling times. The American rice farmer, Mr. Speaker, is becoming an endangered species.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, down in the depths of the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico lies some old Spanish galleon with unrecovered gold, but there is another type of gold in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, black gold. We call it crude oil. There is also white gold there as well. We call it natural gas. These natural gold reserves are energy for today's Americans and we need to drill for these gold reserves. According to the Department of Energy, families across the United States will experience winter heating bills that will be up to 50 percent higher for those who heat with natural gas. This alarming data is yet another reason for us to open up the Outer Continental Shelf and begin drilling for more natural gas and oil off our own coastlines. The so-called global warming will not keep Americans warm this winter. We have got to become more self-sufficient when it comes to energy, natural gas and crude oil. It borders on the absurd to continue to be held hostage by foreign countries and foreign oil and ignore the billions of barrels that have yet to be drilled off the United States coastline. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 3811 to help relieve our energy woes and help stop U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This legislation will allow for safe oil and natural gas exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill would do away with all the moratoriums and executive orders that limit leasing activities while maintaining environmental. Right now 90 percent of our coastline is off limits to drilling because the Federal Government prohibits it. In this chart, Mr. Speaker, I show the three places off the coast of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi where we drill. All the red here, these are sacred places where we cannot drill for oil. Maybe Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi ought to join OPEC. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have got to drill off these other areas because there is oil and there is natural gas in these areas off our Outer Continental Shelf. It is a myth, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot drill offshore safely. The best experts in the world are from the United States and they know how to drill safely. It is a myth perpetrated on the American people by environmental extremists. No one wants polluted waters. I certainly do not, but we can have both safe drilling and environmentally correct drilling as well. Let us look at some of the facts, Mr. Speaker. This chart shows pollution from oil, crude oil. Most of the pollution that is in our oceans comes from nature itself, from seepage on the bottom of the ocean. About 63 percent comes from nature; 32 percent comes from jet skis and oil runoff from American soil; 3 percent comes from those tankers that are bringing crude oil in from the Middle East; and way down here 2 percent of the pollution of crude oil comes from offshore drilling. It is a myth to think that we cannot drill offshore in a correct, an environmentally correct way. The National Academy For Sciences has furnished this information. The American public needs to know the truth about offshore drilling. If coastlines like Florida are worried about the environmental threats, maybe they should stop people from using jet skis and boating because more than a quarter of the spills come from just that. But maybe we should do some research. According to the Department of Interior, since 1985 more than 7 billion barrels of oil were produced in Federal offshore waters, with less than .001 percent spilled. That is a 99.99 percent record for clean operations. My Jeep leaks more oil than this. Katrina and Rita hit the coastline very hard, Mr. Speaker. There were high winds, billions of dollars in damages, refineries were closed, but we did not hear anything about oil spills from offshore rigs that were damaged. Why? Because it cannot occur. Even those violent ladies of the gulf could not get a good oil spill to happen. People in these coastal States want cheap gasoline. They want natural gas, but they say do not drill off our coastlines. Mr. Speaker, this is hypocritical and it violates common sense. Plus, leasing these reserves will bring money to the United States Treasury and to State governments. If Americans expect to continue driving and heating their homes at low prices, we must begin safe drilling in other places besides the gulf. Economies on the coast rely heavily on tourism and they voice concerns about the so-called environmental impact. Mr. Speaker, if fuel costs continue to rise, the planes and automobiles will be used less and these tourists will never show up at these coastal places. It seems like the consequences of higher gas prices could have a worse impact than an innocent oil rig that is 100 miles off the coast. Around the world nearly every other major country with oil and gas reserves is promoting investment and developing their offshore capacity. They even drill in the North Sea, the roughest waters in the world, and they do so safely. Mr. Speaker, we need to continue to explore the Outer Continental Shelf or we will suffer the consequences. Someone has said we will freeze in the dark and end up riding bicycles if we do not use common sense. Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is. National Ocean Industries Association Basic Facts About Offshore Oil and Natural Gas U.S. offshore energy production is an essential component of the nation's energy and economic security. U.S. offshore development accounts for more than 25 percent of the country's natural gas and more than 30 percent of its oil. Each year, offshore energy development contributes between $4 and 6 billion in revenues to the federal Treasury. Millions are also paid to states and local communities. The federal offshore produces approximately 600 million barrels of oil and about 4.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually. The U.S. offshore industry leads the world in developing and commercializing advanced technologies that protect sensitive environments and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The U.S. offshore energy industry operates in accordance with the world's most stringent standards for human safety and environmental protection. Since 1985, more than 7 billion barrels of oil were produced in federal offshore waters with less than 0.001 percent spilled--a 99.999 percent record for clean operations. Government statistics show that the injury and illness rate for offshore workers is about 70 percent lower than for all of private industry. Thirty percent of the 15 million fish caught by recreational fishermen annually off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana are caught near platforms. Conservative estimates show annual catches of approximately 450,000 pounds of reef fish annually, valued at approximately $2 million. national benefits Producing America's Energy The submerged lands of the outer continental shelf (OCS) of the United States have proved to be one of the most bountiful sources of offshore oil and natural gas in the world. On a per-day basis, the OCS currently produces about 13.9 billion cubic feet of natural gas and about 1.3 million barrels of oil. The federally managed OCS provides the bulk--about 89 percent--of all U.S. offshore production. Five coastal states--Alaska, Alabama, California, Louisiana and Texas-- make up the remaining 11 percent. Offshore Energy Revenues Enrich the Nation Between 1953 and 2002, the offshore energy industry has contributed more than $145 billion to federal revenues. Most of these revenues were derived from royalty payments that are assessed on oil and natural gas produced from federal lands-- typically one-eighth or one-sixth of oil and natural gas' market value. Royalties, rents and bonus payments are collected by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)--which often results in that agency serving as the second largest collector of federal revenues after the Internal Revenue Service. Although most the revenues derived from offshore energy activity are deposited directly into the federal Treasury, these revenues are also the source of funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation Fund. State and federal agencies use the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to buy parks and recreation areas. Annually nearly $1 billion dollars in OCS revenues flow to this program. Likewise, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has received more than $2.5 billion in offshore energy proceeds to help preserve historic legacies since 1982. Like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, money from the National Historic Preservation Fund is distributed to states whether or not they have any offshore leasing or production seaward of their coasts. Coastal states in producing areas also have a direct claim on OCS revenues under Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. For leases on the submerged lands lying outside the 3-mile state zone and as far as 10 miles offshore, 27 percent of the royalty, rent and bonus revenues are paid directly to the adjacent states. States have used these funds for a variety of programs. Alabama established the ``Forever Wild Program'' with offshore leasing and production money to acquire, maintain, and protect unique habitats. Mississippi has a similar ``Gulf and Wildlife Protection Fund'' and Louisiana uses its money for education. Employment The Gulf coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is the birthplace of offshore prospecting for oil and natural gas, and the economic benefits of that development continues to accrue to that region to the present day. There are more than 85,000 jobs that are directly related to the industry, and an equal number of workers employed in supporting jobs indirectly related to OCS activity. The average salary and benefits for workers of producing companies employed as a direct result of activity in the Gulf of Mexico was estimated to be $52,580 in 1992. (The last year for which statistics are available.) Since then, a shortage of skilled labor due to the recent boom in industry activity has pushed earnings even higher. In addition to payroll expenditures, producers pay several billion dollars each year to vendors and contractors who support OCS activities. Safety and Environmental Performance The National Academy of Science's National Research Council recently released the results of a comprehensive study entitled, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. The report finds that although the amount of oil produced and transported on the sea continues to rise, improved production technology and safety training of personnel have significantly reduced both blowouts and daily operational spills. In fact, the report states, today, accidental spills from platforms represent only 2 percent of petroleum inputs in U.S. waters and about 4 percent worldwide. Furthermore, the MMS has found that most spills are quite small--with the median being three barrels or less. Between 1971 and 2000, 41 percent of all spills were less than three barrels in size, 81 percent were less than 10 barrels, and 96 percent were less than 100 barrels. The industry remains under intense scrutiny by its two primary regulators--the MMS and the U.S. Coast Guard--as well as a host of other governmental agencies with oversight responsibilities such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. However, it is the MMS that regulates all exploration, development, and production activities on about 8,000 active leases to ensure that these activities are conducted safely and in an environmentally sound manner. The MMS reviews and approves industry exploration and development plans before allowing any operations to commence, monitors all lease operations to ensure that industry is in compliance with relevant requirements, and conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections. In 1997, MMS conducted over 12,000 inspections of OCS facilities. Innovation Boosts U.S. Energy The Deepwater Between 1996 and 1999, technological advances coupled with economic incentives passed by Congress under the 1995 Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, encouraged energy companies to acquire more than 2,600 leases in waters 800 meters or greater pushing the total number of leases in the Gulf of Mexico to more than 7,000. The number of deepwater exploratory wells drilled more than doubled from 1996 to 1998, despite the limited number of rigs that can work at such water depths and the decline in crude oil prices during this time period. During that same period, production from deepwater wells jumped 50 million barrels, bringing total Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil production to more than 570 million barrels in 2001--nearly a 535 percent increase from 1995. By 2002, deepwater activity contributed 959,000 barrels of oil and 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to U.S. energy supplies--approximately 61 percent of the Gulf's total production. Innovative technological leaps have enabled this thrust into ever-deeper waters. Floating drilling rigs and production platforms are now able to maintain position over top of a well thousands of feet below without the need to moor a fixed structure to the ground. Dynamic positioning systems using computer-controlled directional propellers compensate for wind, wave or current to keep the vessel stationary relative to the seabed, while innovative hull designs maintain stability even in ``hundred-year'' storms. As a result, drilling is now taking place in waters more than 10,000 feet deep, an accomplishment that would have been unimaginable just 20 years ago. Since 2001, industry has announced 11 major discoveries in waters exceeding 7,000 feet. The Deep Shelf Trapped more than 15,000 feet within the earth's crust, so- called ``deep natural gas'' represents a tremendous untapped domestic energy resource. Government studies estimate that there could be more than 20 trillion cubic feet of untapped deep natural gas deposits in the Gulf of Mexico--about as much as is currently being produced from all areas in North America on an annual basis! Annual gas production from Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico has exceeded additions to proved gas reserves every year since 1984, causing a decreasing trend in remaining proved gas reserves. New discoveries of deep gas on the OCS offer the best short-term opportunity for achieving the large reserve additions and necessary high flow rates to offset declining gas production, which has been falling since 1997. Recent deep gas discoveries on the OCS have shown these new completions can produce as much 20 to 80 million cubic feet per day. Unfortunately, despite significant advances in deep gas technology, these prospects remain very challenging to find and develop successfully. Since 2001, Gulf natural gas production has decreased from 5,128 BCF to 4,175 BCF in 2003. Deep gas discoveries may help reverse this trend however: deep gas production increased from a relatively low 284 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 421 billion cubic feet in 2002. New Life for the ``Dead Sea'' As recently as the late 1980s, many experts agreed that oil reservoirs in the Gulf were drying up. With oil and natural gas output slackening, some dubbed the Gulf of Mexico the ``Dead Sea''. However, leading edge technologies breathed new life into the Gulf--technologies that have enabled more efficient exploration in deeper waters and production from the deepest recesses of the earth's crust. Now the Gulf is widely recognized to be among the most promising areas in the world and oil production levels have increased sharply every year since 1996. Leading edge offshore technology helps the country to find and produce the energy to heat our homes, fuel our cars, run our computers and drive the economy in faster, safer, cleaner and more efficient ways than ever thought possible. These innovations began with the natural gas and oil industry but they enrich the lives of all Americans. As the leading technological laboratory in the oil industry, the Gulf's transformation provides an interesting snapshot of the advances that have reverberated around the world and helped to keep energy abundant, affordable and clean.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, out on the hot, windy, arid plains of West Texas, where the prairie dog and the coyote make their home, amidst the tumble weeds, is a school that is the oasis of private Christian education and excellence. Celebrating its 100th year, Abilene Christian University, with its over 4000 students and 200 faculty members, has progressed dramatically since its beginning in 1906 as Childress Classical Institute.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, once again democracy has trumped anarchy, chaos, and terror. The Iraqis, 61 percent mind you, went out and voted for a new constitution. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and Shiites have formed a new democracy in Iraq. Those cynics, even those in this House who say the Iraqis are not competent to have a republic, have once again been proven to be the ignorant. I was in Iraq this January and witnessed these proud people yearning to be free. The United States presence in Iraq is serving two purposes: we are fighting and winning the war on terror, and we have helped to establish a democracy, a free nation in that land far, far away. Even though there are those who have the French mindset and want us to cut and run, we will not do so. We will not run from duty and democracy. When our noble cause is completed and the terrorists are on the run, and when the Iraqis can protect their own nation, our troops will return to these shores. To those pacifists that cry, Peace, peace, at any price peace, there can be no peace as long as there is some American somewhere dying for the rest of us. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is an important strategic ally for the United States. The Country is located in a region that can produce and transport energy products to the West. As well as provide military and intelligence capabilities to the United States. Azerbaijan is an emerging major non-OPEC oil producer and transit country (i.e, Baku-Ceyhan pipeline), which will supply 1.6 million barrels a day after being operational December 2005. This will stabilize the other energy producing countries (oil and gas) in the region and their ability to get their product to the marketplace without the dependency of Russia or Iran. Azerbaijan is a front line positioned state for military and intelligence access to Iran. This will act as a stabilizing effect for the region and fight off the aggressive position of Iran. It will also work against terrorist activities spread by fundamental terrorist who have the support of Iran. Azerbaijan is the first Muslim state to provide troops to the U.S. backed coalitions in Iraq., Afghanistan and Kosovo. To date, they are the only Shiite Muslim state to provide troops. Azerbaijan is in the vanguard of the emerging democracies from the former Soviet Union. Azerbaijan has parliamentary elections scheduled November 6, 2005, and is moving forward with international support to assure free and fair elections. Azerbaijan has allowed opposition parties the right to organize, protest, and access public television. Azerbaijan maintains excellent relations with the State of Israel, both, diplomatically and economically including providing crude oil. Azerbaijan is a strong strategic partner with the United States and is cooperating in United States activities regarding Caspian regional security overseeing Iran (e.g., Caspian Guards program, radar system, fly-over rights and re-fueling capacity). Azerbaijan is a strategic asset given its presence as a strong United States-Israel ally next to Iran. Azerbaijan welcomes trade with Israel and stronger ties between the two countries. Iran has threatened Azerbaijan due to cooperation with Israel and the United States Iran continues to inform Azerbaijan that their strong relations with the United States and Israel will not be beneficial, as Iran is their neighbor. The Iran military enters Azerbaijan airspace weekly and Iran has made claims on Azerbaijan's offshore oil and gas exploration. Iran has attempted to spread Madrassas schools in Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan has resisted. Iran pressures Azerbaijan to abolish visas between the two countries, which would lead to less control and more Iranians infiltration into Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is resisting this effort. Occupied Azerbaijan (NK Region) is on the Iranian border, where alleged terrorist camps, narcotic trafficking and weapons trading goes on. Since Armenia has occupied this region of Azerbaijan, almost 16 percent of the total country, this activity has existed with the support of Iran. Azerbaijan is defenseless in trying to stop this activity, as long as Armenia occupies this region.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, when the ladies of the gulf, Katrina and Rita, came barreling through recently, we learned many lessons. Unfortunately, in the aftermath we learned that the gulf coast oil and natural gas production can be easily disrupted to the detriment of the Americans. Although there were around 2,900 platforms pelted in the path of the ladies of the gulf, very little environmental impact resulted. In the wake of these hurricanes, the need for American petroleum and natural gas and dependence on ourselves has become evident. The United States must be more self-sufficient when it comes to energy. The United States imports 60 percent of its crude oil from foreign countries. In doing so, we are subject to the illegal price fixing cartel known as OPEC. The Gulf of Mexico is responsible for one-third of the domestic oil production and 22 percent of the domestic natural gas production. We learned from Katrina and Rita, oil and natural gas production can be disrupted to the detriment of consumers throughout the United States because production is too concentrated in the gulf coast region. To correct these problems, I have introduced H.R. 3811. This legislation would allow for safe oil and natural gas exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill would do away with all appropriation moratoriums and executive orders that limit leasing activities, while maintaining environmental safeguards. It is imperative that the United States begin drilling in other parts outside of the gulf. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues can see from this map, there is a wide range of areas where we can drill. Right now, the United States drills right here off my home State of Texas and Louisiana; yet, there is crude oil still in the Gulf of Mexico, on the east coast and, yes, Madam Speaker, even off the sacred coast of California. It is imperative that we think and consider drilling in these areas. Since the 1980s, Congress has been placing appropriations moratoriums on drilling on all of these red areas that are outlined on this map. They are doing so by withholding leases. It started in California, and now about 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is off limits to energy developments. All these people on these coastal States want cheap gasoline, they want natural gas, but they say do not drill in our neighborhood. Madam Speaker, this is hypocritical. This does not make sense. It violates common sense. In this Outer Continental Shelf, there are about 300 cubic feet of natural gas and more than 50 billion barrels of oil yet to be discovered, enough to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 60 years and produce sufficient natural gas to heat 75 million homes for 60 years. Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that opening up these areas would be the obvious choice. We are the only major industrial power in the world that has this silly rule about not drilling off our own shores. They drill in the North Sea, and around the world, and yet, they do so safely. My bill would allow the Department of the Interior's Mineral and Mining Service to begin processing these leases. This would bring in additional lease revenue to Americans. Right now, Americans are receiving in this blue area $7.5 billion a year in lease revenue. Imagine what we could get from these red areas if we allowed drilling in these areas. It is important that we use some common sense. Americans worry about skyrocketing energy prices and want solutions. The decision on where to drill is going to have to be made and made soon. This is a price issue, but it is also a national security issue. Hurricane season is not over and it will be back next year. It is inevitable that more storms will come down hurricane alley right here in the gulf, and they are going to stop in Louisiana or Texas. With all the rigs in the same place, we are destined to repeat history. Although most of the rigs survived Hurricanes Rita and Katrina with minimal damage, there will be more storms, wind and disasters. Those that say no to offshore drilling have no solutions to the energy problem. We can drill offshore safely, environmentally correct, when you get over the fear factor proposed by the anti-drilling people, and take control of our own energy needs. Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we will freeze in the dark. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, when the second lady of the gulf, Rita, hit Jefferson County, Texas, first responders hunkered down to wait out the storm. They did not leave during this hurricane. After the storm, the first responders began working 12-hour shifts and slept in their cars. The county had and still has no power or water. The responders had no food. So three local heroes took control. Port Arthur police officer Marcelo Molfino, Port Arthur fire fighter David Barclay and a lawyer by the name of Everett Sanderson of Nederland, Texas, took control. Molfino and Barclay worked 48 straight hours looking for meat and finding it before it got thawed. Sanderson opened up his beat up, old damaged restaurant and used a generator and set up a barbecue pit outside in a National Guard tent. These three worked 7 days a week, 15 to 20 hours a day, cooking. Local grocery stores donated more meat during the weeks. One day last week, they fed 6,500 police officers, firefighters, Red Cross and FEMA workers, National Guard troops, Coast Guard and other responders from as far away as Maine, all eating Texas barbecue. They did so without any government bureaucracy, no red tape forms, no permission and no committee meetings. These three heroes got her done.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for debate on rollcall vote No. 515, rule providing for consideration of Gasoline for America's Security Act (H.R. 3893); rollcall vote No. 516, on approving the journal; and rollcall vote No. 517, substitute amendment by Stupak to H.R. 3893. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes 515 and 516. I would have voted ``nay'' for rollcall vote No. 517.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in the Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, crime has skyrocketed as disciplined drug cartels have turned up their battle for total territory control over this chief entry point into the U.S. Our open border policy encourages drug dealers to lead organized efforts to infiltrate the United States in their fighting over this territory. So far this year more than 135 people have died, seven police officers have been killed and 44 American citizens have been kidnapped in this treacherous town. Mr. Speaker, I have a recent newspaper article from Nuevo Laredo that shows a police officer, a policewoman, that was set on fire in the streets of Nuevo Laredo trying to enforce the law. The reason that there is chaos, Mr. Speaker, is because these drug cartels are trying to come into the United States. They are fighting over territory. Because the United States basically has no policy in protecting our borders, there is chaos on the border. Mr. Speaker, the border is a perilous place. How many more people have to die? How many more Americans have to be kidnapped in this border town before we protect our borders?

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, as the howling winds and incessant rain from the ``Lady of the Gulf--Rita'' moved closer to southeast Texas, 90 percent of the population in my district evacuated, but the first responders in Beaumont and other towns were worried about where to ride out the looming summer storm and potential floods. Docked in the Port of Beaumont were the Cape Vincent, helmed by Captain David Scott, and the sister ship Cape Victory, with Captain Kevin Brooks. These two massive vessels transport military cargo to Iraq and Afghanistan. The captains and the mayor, Guy Goodson, met briefly. The plan: Use the ships. The ships were loaded with first responders and police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, city dump trucks, front end loaders and even police helicopters. The expert ship crews coolly but quickly took little time in safely securing our first responders and their equipment. Tugs in the port operated during the howling hurricane winds to secure the ships. In this operation, there was no senseless red tape, no forms were filled out, no committees met, and no permission from bureaucrats was sought. The people of Texas appreciate Captain Brooks and Captain Scott and their crews for, as we say in Texas, ``Gittin' `er done.''