Ted Poe

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for sponsoring this legislation. I am glad to be a co-author/cosponsor of the legislation. The burden victims carry does not go away when the headlines do. The Children's Safety Act has important preventative measures, but it also instigates appropriate response after a citizen has been victimized. The Children's Safety Act provides tough tools to keep predators accountable and their whereabouts known by the rest of us. There is one thing that a predator wants more than anything else and that is to remain anonymous, to sneak in and out of our communities and commit their criminal ways. The issue of protecting our children from predators is on the minds of every mother and father as they put their children on school buses every morning during the school year. From the countless phone calls, letters, and e-mails pleading to protect our kids from sex predators, we know these protections to our children in the Children's Safety Act are a priority to our Nation and our people. Keeping our children safe from predators should be all of our priorities here in the United States Congress. We know that child molesters, after they leave the penitentiary, most of them do it again. In this country, we are able to track a cow from the time it is born as a calf to the time it ends up on the supper table somewhere in the United States as a steak. We do that because of public safety. Now we are going to track child molesters when they leave the penitentiary. We will track them indefinitely because of public safety. Children should be at least as important as cattle. As a co-author and cosponsor of the Children's Safety Act, as a former judge in Houston, Texas, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to their constituents, listen to the people of this country, vote in favor of safety for American children. The days of child molesters running and hiding are over.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it is the desire to be frugal that led the Base Closure Commission to recommend the retirement of the 147th Fighter Wing from Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. The removal of these aircraft would severely weaken the military's ability to protect the City of Houston, NASA, the Port of Houston, the Port of Beaumont, and Port Arthur. It is for that reason that I have introduced House Resolution 412 which calls for the President to work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that any base closings do not affect homeland security inadvertently. Mr. Speaker, we should reevaluate our foreign giveaway programs if we want to save money. When homeland security is at stake and the energy capital of the world is potentially without fighter protection, the penny pinchers need to reevaluate their priorities. Like every mother tells her child, ``safety first.'' So we need to keep the F-16s flying over Southeast Texas and the energy capital of the world.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, nearly a quarter of a million folks from Louisiana are now in Texas due to the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina. Taking care of these people is a daunting task, but the good people of southeast Texas have risen to the challenge. Today, I would especially like to acknowledge the hard work being done by our faith community. They include the Spring Tabernacle in Spring, Texas; the First Baptist Churches of South Houston, Katy, and Houston, Texas; the Bayshore Baptist Church in LaPorte; the New Life Church in LaPorte; the Second Baptist Churches of Baytown and Houston, Texas; Holy Family Catholic Church in Baytown; the Calvary Baptist Church in Beaumont; and the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston. There are many other churches in Harris, Liberty, and Jefferson Counties who have set up shelters that house evacuees numbering into the thousands. Dozens of other churches have started donation sites and food banks that have been so effective that the Houston Area Salvation Army has stated they have plenty of items for these evacuees. Madam Speaker, while the work of these churches is extraordinary, they do not seem to think so. To them, they are doing exactly what they should be doing. They are just following the good biblical principle of taking care of and loving their neighbor.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Master Sergeant Roy Benavides was born in south Texas on a ranch on August 5, 1935. He was a sharecropper's son, and he barely knew his parents. He was orphaned when he was young, and he and his brother went to live with an uncle in El Campo, Texas. Roy was a quiet kid and spent most of his time in the sugar cane and cotton fields of south Texas working. He only finished the eighth grade, and his classmates made fun of him because of the way he talked. He joined the Army at the age of 19 and became an Army of One. On his first combat tour in Vietnam, he stepped on a land mine. Doctors were not sure he would be able to keep his leg, but he recovered and went on to become one of those legendary Green Berets. During his second tour in Vietnam, in the early morning hours of May 2, 1968, Roy Benavides was monitoring a radio, listening to a 12-man unit on patrol. Three Green Berets and nine Montagnard tribesmen were dropped off into the dark, dense jungle west of Lok Nenh, Vietnam. The jungle they were dropped in was infested with the substantial force of the well-trained North Vietnamese Army. As quickly as they disembarked the Army helicopter, the American unit was surrounded by a large force of Vietnamese regulars. It was immediately clear to them that the mission had been given incorrect intelligence on the strength of the enemy. Three helicopters were ordered to evacuate the overrun and overwhelmed American troops. Due to intense enemy fire, the choppers could not rescue those Americans. All the while, Sergeant Benavides was monitoring the operation by radio. When Roy heard one of his soldiers scream, ``Get us out of here,'' he jumped onto another helicopter and volunteered for a second evacuation attempt. When he arrived under fire at the shocking scene, four Americans were already dead; eight others were wounded and unable to move. Carrying a knife and a medic bag, Benavides left from the helicopter that was hovering 10 feet above the ground. He ran 70 yards under small arms fire to his injured and crippled troopers. Before he could get to them, he was shot in the leg, the face and the head, but he took charge and kept moving. He tended to the injured. He threw out smoke canisters to facilitate the landing of helicopters and dragged the injured and dead aboard. Dodging bullets from the enemy, he ran in to find the dead team leader to recover his body and the classified documents he had on him. It was in this attempt where he was severely wounded again. He succeeded in getting the classified documents, but he was shot in the stomach and grenade fragments blasted into his back. At the same time, the hovering helicopter pilot was fatally wounded, and the helicopter crashed. Even wounded, Sergeant Benavides helped the other wounded escape from the burning wreckage. He called in air strikes with the hope of suppressing the enemy and allowing for a third evacuation. In critical condition, he supplied water and ammunition to his wounded troopers. His unconquerable spirit kept him going, and he inspired the wounded to stay strong and fight. And they did, for 6 more hours against vicious enemy fire. When another helicopter eventually landed, he assisted in loading the wounded. On the second trip to this copter, he was bayoneted and received additional wounds in his head and arms. He was out of ammo. Master Sergeant Benavides had to fight assailants with his bare hands. He finished the job of loading his buddies and killed two more enemy soldiers who were attempting to rush the aircraft. After grabbing the last remaining classified documents, Master Sergeant Benavides allowed himself on the helicopter where he collapsed, and those abroad presumed him to be dead. He risked his life for hours, and because of his courage and refusal to be stopped, he succeeded in saving the lives of eight of his troopers. Keeping with the American military tradition, he left no one behind on the battlefield. On the return flight back to the base, Benavides' body was lifeless. He was unable to speak; and when unloaded from the helicopter, Army doctors presumed him to be dead. As they placed him into a body bag, Benavides did the only thing he could to prove he was not dead, he spit blood in the face of the doctor. He was then rushed to surgery and began to recover from seven gunshot wounds, 28 shrapnel wounds and bayonet wounds. Master Sergeant Roy Benavides was a true hero and a proud American. His fearless leadership, courage and devotion to duty and America earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He acted above and beyond the call of duty. His courage has been described as superhuman. When speaking about Master Sergeant Benavides, Ronald Reagan once said, ``If his heroism were a movie script, you just would not believe it''. But he did not regard himself as someone special. He once said, the real heroes are the ones that gave their lives for America. I do not like being called a hero. I did just what I was trained to do. He remained in the Army until 1976, and he spent the rest of his life counseling troubled Hispanic children and speaking to schools and youth groups. He is an example to all. In 1998, on his deathbed, he proclaimed, ``I am proud to be an American.'' And he still had two pieces of shrapnel in his heart. So as we acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month, we are thankful to the Hispanic American heroes like Master Sergeant Roy Benavides. There were over 10,000 Hispanics killed in Vietnam, 20 percent of the casualties in Vietnam? And as our brave men and women continue to fight overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we can be sure that American Hispanics will continue to serve this Nation and fulfill the motto of General Douglas McArthur of duty, honor and country.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the devastation of Hurricane Katrina is a vivid reminder to Texans of another hurricane that occurred 105 years ago, the weekend of September 8, 1900, in Galveston, Texas. That hurricane, known to many as ``the storm,'' was the deadliest natural disaster to take place in American history. In 1900, Galveston was the showplace of the Gulf of Mexico, referred to by many as the Jewel of Texas and the wealthiest city in the State of Texas. On that weekend in September, as 40,000 residents and vacationers were bidding farewell to summer, weather forecasters were watching closely an unnamed hurricane brewing in the Gulf of Mexico. Having very little of today's weather forecasting equipment, the trackers lost the location of the storm in the gulf after it passed the predicted landfall of Florida. It began as a tropical storm on August 27, 1900, and no one could imagine what it would become. Twelve days later, in the darkness of the night on September 8, 105 years ago today, it started to rain in Galveston and the water silently and quickly began to rise. It crept and covered the low-lying island. The island was barely above sea level at 5 to 9 feet. There was no time for any evacuation. The strong winds and rains ravaged the city. Houses were devastated and families were swept away. As the power and phones went out, people started wading through the murky mounting water. They sought shelter in downtown buildings and churches as the gale winds and incessant rain continued to increase. Nuns in the local orphanage tied a roped around the waists of the children and unsuccessfully tried to lead them to higher ground. Of the 93 children and 10 Catholic nuns, only three boys survived. No one was prepared or adequately warned for this Category 4 hurricane that hit the city of Galveston. The force of the 140-mile-an- hour winds caused a water surge that covered most of the 3 mile by 30 mile island in minutes. The nameless hurricane destroyed 3,500 buildings, over half of the city. The loss of life was staggering. It reminds me of the scripture of old, that the rains came down, the waters rose, and the winds blew and beat against the houses. But when the rains stopped and the wind blew no more, over 8,000 people had died. Hundreds more were never accounted for. Nearly everyone on the island knew a friend or relative who had perished. Isaac Cline, a Galveston forecaster, never believed that the hurricane could ravage this paradise island. After the calm came once more, Cline described the storm's aftermath as ``the most horrible sight that was ever witnessed by a civilized people.'' When the hurricane finally moved inland, and it did not end its winds until it got to Canada, the task of recovery was overwhelming. Prisoners of the State penitentiary were used in the cleanup to find the dead, buried at sea, only to resurface on the beaches. Bodies were still being found in February of the next year. Since it was not possible to bury the thousands that died, they were eventually cremated. The story of Galveston's hurricane is a story of death and devastation and ultimate determination. The survivors in Galveston were committed to protect their city in the future. They dredged the ship channel and the island was literally raised 17 feet by the dredging. It would be an engineering marvel even today. A massive sea wall was built to protect the city from future hurricanes. The economic loss, property loss, and loss of life had a serious impact on the coastal city. Although the great storm in Galveston was extraordinary, those who survived and pitched in to help rebuild Galveston were just as extraordinary in their grit and character. Those brave Texans who survived faced the challenges head on, and eventually Galveston rose back from that murky mud. Galveston has come a long way since that weekend in 1900. It is once again a thriving community, rich in history, opportunity; and the citizens are as resilient as they were 105 years ago today. Galveston did lose, however, its title of ``wealthiest city'' to another place up the bayou called Houston. Today, as our Gulf Coast neighbors struggle to put their lives back together after the devastating blow they received from Hurricane Katrina, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families. The devastation caused by this hurricane affects the entire Nation, and we must come together to provide for our friends, our relatives and our neighbors in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama during this time. On the anniversary of the ``great storm,'' the Galveston storm, the people of southeast Texas are ready and showing their compassionate spirit to those devastated by Katrina. I commend them for their kindness in this time of need. Just as Galveston was rebuilt, we remain optimistic that this recent disaster will be overcome by collective efforts of all Americans. As Americans, we are all in this together, Mr. Speaker; and we need to be on the same page in the hymnal. That is just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and salute those members of the National Guard for the tremendous efforts they put forth in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. They have tirelessly devoted their time and energy working around the clock to support neighbors, Americans who have been affected by this unfortunate devastating event. Altogether, there are over 45,000 National Guard personnel on the ground or aboard ships supporting the massive relief efforts that continue to take place. Members of the National Guard have provided widespread search and rescue, evacuation, medical support. They braved the dangers of flood waters and have been faced with unimaginable situations to evacuate over 50,000 people and rescue 11,000 from hotels, rooftops, and floating debris. I want to specifically commend and thank the 155 members of the 8th Brigade of the Texas National Guard. Under the command of Colonel Donald Petrash, the 8th Brigade is stationed at 12 different shelters helping evacuees from Louisiana in southeast Texas. Mr. Speaker, the National Guard and Reservists are vital to our communities especially during these times. This is just another reminder that we must never forget about our citizen soldiers.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank Texans that are helping our neighbors from across the Sabine River in Louisiana. The amazing hurricane relief efforts being organized in the State of Texas are a model for compassion, concern, and competence. The city of Houston, following the leadership of Mayor Bill White, is housing over 40,000 individuals from New Orleans. The Houston Astrodome has been opened up under the supervision of Harris County Judge Robert Echols and is housing close to 20,000 people. Next door in Jefferson County under the direction of Judge Carl Griffith, they are housing more than 1,800 people in their county complex. Altogether close to a quarter of a million displaced persons from Louisiana are being taken care of by Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are those who have done nothing in this disaster except criticize and complain. I instead rise to praise and encourage. I would like to thank Mayor White, Judge Echols, Judge Griffith, and the thousands of volunteers across the State of Texas for showing us what character and compassion are all about. I know they will continue to ``git'r done.''

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the news reports: 80-year-old woman gives birth to 300-pound baby; bat child found in Utah cave; Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs. Mr. Speaker, these are a few tabloid headlines that have been released recently. They seem a bit outrageous to normal people, especially the last one. As a fellow Texan and great admirer of Lance Armstrong, I stand with him in the face of this mindless, babbling slander. Using unknown procedures and almost none of the standards outlined by the World Anti-Doping Agency, a newspaper pretends to have proof that in 1999, six years ago no less, Lance Armstrong used a performance- enhancing drug. What a shock, the newspaper is a French one. This most recent saga is a continuation of an ongoing struggle between Lance Armstrong and the French press. Since 1999 when Lance won the first of his seven consecutive Tour de France races, the French press has accused him of using drugs. The French would line the streets as Lance raced by. They would spit on him and curse and chant, ``Dope, dope.'' Lance Armstrong's past is fairly well-known. In 1996, Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer, and the condition spread to his abdomen, his lungs and his brain. He was given about a 33 percent chance of living. With the help of modern medicine, the good Lord and an iron will, Lance Armstrong beat cancer, went on to race again, and became arguably the best cyclist in history. But, Mr. Speaker, the anti-American French press cannot handle this truth so they attack the victor. Once again, they try and project their arrogance and obsessed outlandish sentiment against one of cycling's best. Cycling in France is like baseball or football is in the United States, and they cannot comprehend how an American, a Texan no less, could dominate their sport. The most important aspect of Armstrong's success is his ability to train longer and harder than any other man alive. In the words of one racing expert, ``Lance pushed physical preparations to new limits.'' In his book, Lance attributes his training abilities to the fact that he learned how to endure pain during his battle with cancer. Mr. Speaker, the idea of a perfect athlete is similar to the idea of a perfect storm. You take the most gifted athlete, his ability to combine that with the most dedicated work ethic, and what you have is Lance Armstrong. You see, Lance wants it more than anyone else. Seven Tour de France crowns and a million dumbfounded French reporters later what you get is this situation today. We have a tremendous athlete falling victim to the accusations of reporters with an obvious case of sour grapes and elitist European snobbery. Mr. Speaker, I was a felony court judge in Texas for 20 years and a prosecutor for 8. I never lost a jury trial as a prosecutor, so I know what it takes to convict someone. I know about the chain of evidence and due process. And nothing about the most recent of the French allegations against Lance Armstrong is credible. Not a court in the United States or even France would convict him of these atrocious and appalling allegations. There have been many drug tests done on Lance Armstrong over the years, and all of a sudden, years later, as if out of some obscure cave, a French newspaper reports some old samples from a French lab came back positive. Mr. Speaker, that dog just won't hunt. Essentially, there is no proof that these mysterious samples used in this test were even Lance Armstrong's. There is no proof they were stored properly and there is no proof the test is even reliable. The chain of evidence is so horrible that nobody can prove that the samples were not switched. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is simply the latest bombardment of the 7-year smear campaign by the French media. They cannot defeat Lance Armstrong in their race, so they are attempting to bring him down with allegations and junk tabloid journalism. If this latest so-called proof is the best the French can do, I suggest they do what they do best: throw up their hands and surrender. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, and I would encourage this tabloid to put out the campfire and call in the dogs, because the hunt is over. Mr. Speaker, what the French need to remember is that Lance Armstrong's life stands for much more than his amazing cycling abilities and winning seven races. He knows there is more to life than the 15,205 miles he cycled in those seven races. Although the Tour de France is known as the world's most grueling test of human endurance, fighting cancer and going on to win the test of life is more remarkable. As a superior athlete, he has succeeded in inspiring cancer patients around the globe and will continue his fight for years to come, despite absurd accusations as this one. Perhaps Lance Armstrong has the best answer to these absolute absurd allegations. In a 2000 Nike commercial that he produced he made the statement, ``Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What I'm on: I'm on a bike busting my butt 6 hours a day. What are you on?''

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in 1836 Texans were in desperate need and fighting for freedom and independence from Mexico. Hundreds of men from Louisiana joined to help Texas in this struggle and time of need. Among them were Jim Bowie, hero of the Alamo; and volunteer soldiers forming a unit known as the New Orleans Greys helped in this endeavor. These brave men came to Texas' aid to fight against the oppression of the dictator Santa Anna. They fought and died at the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto. Today, 170 years later, it is the people of Louisiana who are in desperate need in their struggle against the oppression caused by Hurricane Katrina. There are approximately 200,000 people from Louisiana now in Texas because of Katrina. Mr. Speaker, just as the people of Louisiana came to Texas' aid those many years ago, so will Texans come to theirs. We along with other Americans will join the people of Louisiana until they are able to be free from the effects of Hurricane Katrina and rebuild their great city of New Orleans. It is what good Americans, good neighbors, good Southerners, and good Texans do.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments and also the sponsorship of his CLEAR Act. It is clear to me that the CLEAR Act ought to be the law of the land and allow police officers to do their jobs. It is silly that police officers in many States, and unfortunately Texas is one of them, that if they come across an individual that is illegally in the United States, they cannot do anything about that individual. They cannot take them to the Federal authorities and let the Federal authorities deport those people. It defies common sense that they are not allowed to do that. They certainly should have the authority under the rule of law to enforce all of the laws, the violations of the laws that they have found out about. What my colleague from Georgia mentioned about border security regarding the issue of amnesty and the issue of terrorism is very well taken. Of course, as I mentioned with our good friend from Arizona, amnesty is one of those words that in my area of the country people do not accept. They think that is a bad idea. We tried amnesty in this country. It did not work. Now there are those who want to try it again. We need to remember history, and history has shown that giving people a free ride that were here illegally has not solved any of our immigration policies. We have a policy in the United States in many cities called safe havens, created by sanctuary laws. These laws basically prevent police from arresting individuals that they come across who are illegally in the United States for no other reason than they have crossed paths and that they find out that they are here illegally. Not only that, these sanctuary laws and these sanctuary hideouts prevent and prohibit police officers from, and I quote the law that first started in Los Angeles, initiating any police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of the individual. It just seems to me, and common sense would dictate, that the police should know who is in the United States legally and illegally. These cities obviously have not heard of the war on terror. This policy has created an absurdity by allowing these individuals who have come here illegally to basically have sanctuary hideouts and prevent the police from arresting them because they are here illegally. To further demonstrate the problem with these sanctuary hideouts, and it is also detrimental to national security, we need to mention the violent MS-13 gang that has spread across the United States. MS-13 is a gang of criminals, drug dealers from Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and some from Mexico. They live in our prisons, those that have been captured; but they also live outside the United States, and they live in the United States. They have gotten so out of control that prospective members must commit a violent act against a community, usually a community in the United States, to become a member of the MS- 13 gang. MS-13 and other gangs like this share two things in common: they are regularly arrested for committing crimes, they do time, they are deported and they come back to the United States. The second thing these gangs have in common is that once they are back in the United States, they are often ignored by the police because, even though the police know they are illegally here, they know that they cannot stop them for just being illegally in the United States. This occurs in many of our larger cities. Of course, these gang members not only deal in drug trafficking but they have organized so well they know how to come into the United States. According to recent reports, MS-13 has made contacts with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Because these gangs are so adept at evading our border patrol and so knowledgeable about sanctuary laws, al Qaeda seeks them out as guides. When it comes down to it, we cannot afford to continue sanctuary hideouts in the United States. They give safe haven to gang members, and they destroy our streets and corrupt our neighborhoods. They even allow now our worst enemies to ally with those individuals who have come here illegally. So we really have two terrorist groups in the United States. We have a domestic terrorist group, MS-13 and their likewise gang members who deal in drug trafficking, and we have an international terrorist group that we all know about. We must now have to deal with both of those. Mr. Speaker, there are about 800,000 local law enforcement officials in the United States, and they take a pledge to protect and serve every day, the task of enforcing our laws and making our communities safe. They watch out for our country and our kids and our families in this great land. We must allow those State and local law enforcement authorities the authority to arrest people that are here illegally and deal with them through the Federal process. The police are on the front lines every day, and they should be allies with the Federal Government in assisting to protect and serve and protect the borders.

Mr. POE. The gentleman from Georgia is exactly correct. I know a lot of police officers. Some rookies, some have been around, some have retired. They do it for the reason that they want to help the community protect the neighborhoods and enforce the rule of law. They, too, are frustrated about these sanctuary laws throughout the United States that basically give them a hands-off policy in dealing with illegals. They want to work with the Federal authorities. Of course they know the consequences of enforcing the law. Some of them have been threatened with being terminated if they arrest people who have been illegally in the United States for no other purpose.

Mr. POE. I think part of the reason is exactly that. Cities and communities are afraid of those lawsuits and being tied up in court on enforcing the rule of law. How silly has this all become where cities cannot enforce the rule of law in the United States for fear of being sued by some other entity. As my colleague well knows, this needs to be cleared up so that these authorities can have the proper legal authority to arrest individuals that are here illegally and have them dealt with through Federal immigration policy. It is a very frustrating thing, and we see that occur. We hear police officers talk about that very problem on numerous occasions. Let me mention, Mr. Speaker, a few more matters before I conclude here. This is a national security issue. It is an immigration issue. It is protecting the borders and making sure that we keep our borders safe for the Americans who live in the United States. As the gentleman from Georgia has pointed out, we only have about 2,000 officials in the whole United States that are actually seeking out people illegally in the United States once they cross the border. One of the solutions maybe is to require a passport for people coming into the United States from Mexico and from Canada. Immigration officials have to look at hundreds of different types of documents to verify someone's legal status or who they are, their identity, before they come into the United States. Maybe we should reevaluate that policy. A passport policy would certainly not discriminate as we seem to do now on entry into the United States, and requiring individuals to have those passports to come and go from the United States would certainly help identify the true identity of these individuals. So often people who come to the United States have already obtained a false identification. I experienced even in my time at the courthouse that individuals were sometimes using one Social Security card and there were seven or eight people using the same Social Security card to work in the United States. That Social Security card to begin with was fraudulent and a forgery. Maybe the passport idea is something that we need to evaluate and something that we certainly need to do as soon as we can to ensure the quality and safety of our borders. I have received, as all Members of Congress receive, numerous letters from constituents about many issues. The comments I receive the most have to do with immigration and safety of the United States and national security and homeland security. It all centers around the borders. I had a senior citizen who contacts my office on a regular basis who sent me this letter, and with this last letter I will close. However, before doing so, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. POE. I thank my friend from Iowa. We hopefully will deal with this issue as a body in September, come up with a commonsense immigration policy and plan that works. But any plan that we come up with has to start with the basic premise that we have to secure the borders and make sure that people in other nations respect the rule of law in the United States. As you mentioned and alluded to, we have people that come here legally. The process of coming here legally is taking so long, it discourages legal immigration and encourages those people to go around the rule of law and come into the United States illegally. A commonsense immigration policy that is fair to Americans, puts America first, is something that we need to deal with. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to read a short letter from a senior citizen down in east Texas. There is that east Texas wit and common sense that sometimes we do not see throughout other portions of the United States. He starts out his letter: ``There is an iceberg in the national bathtub. Illegal immigration and our current government's nonresponse to it is jeopardizing our national security, our State's security and our local security. With these 25 million illegal immigrants comes a huge problem and even larger risks. ``We have more than likely allowed several terrorists and their weapons into the country. We all but rolled out the red carpet. The social welfare costs are damning. The disease and heightened risk from an epidemic increase every day. The threats to our law and order are real as crime rates attributable to certain gangs and the human smugglers is intolerable. ``The most telling tale of neglect and dereliction of duty is the Minute Men, having to do the job the Federal Government refuses to do. I am joining these individuals with my vote. No one will ever get my vote unless this cart and horse is turned around 180 degrees in the next election cycle. I am sick of excuses and political statements and rhetoric and all of these fake hands across the border. We have got to seal the borders, get control, and fix our immigration laws and the rule of law at this time.'' Mr. Speaker, the members of our community seem to get it. I do not know why the Federal Government does not seem to get it. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. We have to deal with this immigration issue as a body, set a plan, and enforce the law.

Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, for the last few weeks I have been discussing the ongoing problem of illegal immigration into the United States; and have mentioned numerous ills of this lack of a policy and how it affects the United States and citizens here; how we are expending exorbitant amounts of money to fund the actions of illegals, and Americans pay for it. Besides the cost of illegal immigration, the effect of our homeland security is detrimental to the safety of our country, and we need to have a plan and a plan that makes sense, has common sense, and that works. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) as much time as he wishes to consume on this issue of immigration and one of the novel ideas he has come up with to help solve this problem.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), my fellow colleague, and his words on stemming the tide of the invasion, really, into the United States. Being from Texas, the gentleman knows very well the issues of border security and the problems it is causing and the fact that we have an open border policy basically in the southwest portions of the United States. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and the approach to getting serious about protecting the United States borders north and south. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this Nation is a Nation of immigrants, and I certainly support legal immigration into the United States. We all take pride in our heritage, in who we are and where we came from. My ancestors on my mother's and dad's sides came from Scotland and Germany. And when we look around the Chamber on any given day, we see people from all over the world, their backgrounds from all over the world, ethnic and racial backgrounds. Of course, our national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many, One,'' is what this Nation was built upon. And the many did not simply come from the mixing of cultures, but the commonly held belief they came here for a reason. They came here for freedom, they came here for liberty, and they came here, yes, for religious opportunity. But they came here also because of the rule of law. In 1890, Ellis Island was elected the site for construction of a Federal immigration station for the Port of New York. This island was open for business on January 1 of the next year. The first person to go through Ellis Island was a 15-year-old girl, Annie Moore from Ireland, January 1, 1892. She was born in 1877 in a place called Cork, Ireland. Her parents, Matthew and Mary, had already emigrated legally to the United States, seeking to find a better life for their family. They did not really know what to expect when they came to this America, so they left Annie and her two brothers back in Ireland. After 2 years, they established themselves and sent for their children. Annie and her brothers boarded the ship the Nevada in Queenstown, and 12 days later they arrived in New York Harbor. They were reunited with their parents at Ellis Island and they had moved, to all places, Texas. So the first Ellis Island immigrant moved to and lived in Texas. That first day, around 700 immigrants were processed on that island, and they would be followed by almost 500,000 that very year. People who came here were screened, and some were made to return to their native lands because they did not meet certain requirements to be a legal immigrant. The peak of the years of immigration through Ellis Island were between 1892 and 1924. In 1954, Ellis Island officially closed. Between those years, many famous people passed through the front doors of freedom to America: Albert Einstein, Bob Hope, F. Scott Fitzgerald, W. C. Fields, and Rudyard Kipling, just a few of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who came here. Those people were screened by immigrant officials to make sure they were healthy and that they could offer something to America rather than take something from America. The people who came through Ellis Island were from all over the world. Germans, Irish, Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, Polish and Russians all passed through Ellis Island. All together, 12 million immigrants passed through the front doors of freedom during that era. One hundred million Americans today in our country, about a third, can trace their ancestry to the United States from a man, woman, or child who passed through Ellis Island. Margaret Thatcher made the comment that no other Nation has so successfully combined people of other races and nations into a single culture, and she is right about that. The immigrants who flocked to Ellis Island and created the great melting pot that is America had one thing in common: they showed great respects for our Nation and its laws by emigrating legally. They all wanted to be Americans. They wanted to be in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and they understood that by coming here, and coming here legally, they would eventually get citizenship and become an American. They honored their own culture, but realized they had to understand this American culture in order to become a part of it. Ronald Reagan made the comment many, many years ago about America being different than any other place in the world. He said that anybody can be an American, and people have come from all over the world to be Americans. But you can go to Italy and never be Italian; you can go to France, and you will never be French; and you can go to Germany, and you will never be German. But anybody can come to the United States and be an American. And he is right about that. Today, Mr. Speaker, we see times have changed. People no longer seek immigration status into the United States on a legal basis. There is a free flow of people across our border, and we now have a Nation that is so increasingly tolerant of other people's views that we fail to make sure they understand ours. Some say that we are losing our identity as a Nation because we have open borders. In order to stem this tide, we must make certain our Nation's borders are secure and that any immigration into this country is done the right way, the fair way, and in a legal way. Everybody wants to live in the United States, but everybody cannot live in the United States; so we have to have some rules. We have to have a policy, and we have to use common sense and make sure it is fair to all. If we allow anyone from anywhere to flood into our country, we will lose the traditions of our country and eventually destroy the American Dream for all people. Open borders cause chaos in this country. The United States is not only being invaded by illegals but these individuals are colonizing our country, and American citizens are paying for it. Americans always pay, Mr. Speaker. The price of illegal immigration is a serious problem that is costing American taxpayers millions of dollars from the areas of social services to health care to education to law enforcement. The American taxpayer is forced by our government to fund illegal immigration because the government does not protect the borders. It is estimated that between 11 million and 14 million people are living in the United States illegally. That number rises by as much as 500,000 a year. All of these people are living in our country illegally, and many are living off the United States and the people who are citizens here and the generosity of those individuals by receiving government benefits at the expense of American taxpayers. Although it is the Federal Government's responsibility to control immigration, the lack of enforcement by the Federal Government causes citizens of the United States to pay the high costs associated with this lack of policy. Americans have to pay those costs in education, criminal justice, health care, and social services for those who are here illegally. It is reported that 20 percent of these costs that Americans pay are attributed to the illegal people that use the system that got here illegally in the first place. A huge cost to citizens is providing health care. America is a compassionate country, and American doctors do not turn people away from health care. We have the best health care in the world. And, of course, these doctors and these hospitals do not turn away even illegal people here. A trip to the emergency room costs money, and many illegals do not have money to pay these fees. So somebody has to pay, and Americans pay. Americans always pay. And these illegals get access to free American health care, free health care to them but not to the rest of us. Another problem is immigrants' use of hospital emergency rooms rather than preventive medical care. The utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegals is more than twice the rate of the overall United States population. About half of the illegal immigrant population in the United States has no insurance or it is provided to them at taxpayers' expense. In some hospitals, as much as two-thirds of their total operating costs are uncompensated care for people who are illegal in the United States. In these instances, the Federal Government, which is really the American citizens, the taxpayer, pays the bill; and the illegal individual is essentially given free health care. Some hospitals in urban areas have been forced to shut down because it is impossible for them to absorb the cost of health care by people who are in the system but do not pay for that system. We have a health care cost crisis in the United States; and part of the reason for it that no one wants to mention are those people who take from the system, but who do not pay for it. If we are going to treat illegals in our hospitals, we should send those hospital bills to the countries where they come from. Why should Americans pay? We always pay. Maybe we should send the bill to those countries, those presidents who encourage their citizens to come to this Nation, especially illegally. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has joined me on the floor. Does the gentleman wish to make a comment?

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for pointing out the situation in Arizona. The gentleman is exactly correct in what he says about enforcing the rule of law. Amnesty is a word that will bring the blood pressure up of my constituents in the Second Congressional District of Texas faster than any other trigger word, because we do not reward illegal behavior. I did not do so as a judge for 22 years. We first start by securing the border of the United States for several reasons, and we go from there. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) making those comments. Not only is health care cost a tremendous issue because of illegal immigration, we have the cost of education. Education happens to be the largest public cost associated with illegal immigration in the United States, and it is going to have long-term consequences. The Supreme Court ruled back in 1982 that all people, all children in the United States are provided a free public school education. It is estimated there are more than 50,000 illegal students in the United States public schools; the Federation for Immigration Reform, total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants cost the States $12 billion. So that means it is costing taxpayers $12 billion a year to educate those individuals. The $3.9 billion spent annually educating children of illegal immigrants in Texas could cover the shortfall that the Texas Federation for Teachers has identified for school books and pension contributions. It could even increase the salaries of teachers. And Texas is undergoing a tremendous cost problem with education in our State, trying to make sure that we do it in a fair and equitable way, but part of the problem is taxpayers are having to fund education for those people who are illegally here in the United States. It is not just a border issue. The State of Georgia spends about $26 million to teach bilingual education. This is not fair to Americans. The problem is not only in the public school systems. Nine States, including Texas, has started rewarding illegals by giving them instate tuitions when they decide to go to a public university. Let me explain that. These people are illegally in the United States to begin with, but yet when they get accepted to a public university, they get to go to that public university, paying instate tuition. That is about 3,700 students in the State of Texas. That is unfair to American kids. A kid from Oklahoma, if they want to go to the University of Texas, they pay out-of-State tuition which is about three times the amount of instate tuition. So we discriminate against American citizens to the behest of people here illegally. And people who come to the United States legally to get an education from all over the world, and they do so in a legal manner, they pay out-of-State tuition. They pay the same out-of-State tuition as someone from Oklahoma would pay. But if you are here illegally, nine States allow those individuals to pay instate tuition. This ought not to be. It defies common sense. These citizens or these individuals are illegally living in the United States, they are not legal residents to begin with, and they are not eligible to work in the United States after they get that education. So the United States is paying to educate these people who, upon graduation, cannot legally work here. This defies logic. Not only that, admission spaces in public universities are limited. Legal residents are being denied entry due to the fact that illegals are taking up spaces. These spaces are being filled by other individuals, and yet Americans pay, Americans all pay. Further, to show how extensive this problem is, many illegals receive State and Federal grants to attend a university. What that means is they are receiving moneys to go to these universities. These grants should go to American kids, American citizens. Many times parents in this country cannot afford to send their children to a college, to a university. They seek help. Well, some of this aid is going to people who are illegally in the United States. It defies common sense. Going further, not only mentioning health care and education, there is the criminal justice system. When I was a judge in Houston, Texas, for over 22 years, it was estimated that 20 percent of the people I saw were illegally in the United States. While they are serving time in Texas penitentiaries, Texans were paying the price. We provide those individuals a defense attorney, a court system, a trial, and incarceration, all on the American taxpayers' dollar. Americans pay, Americans always pay. Of course, there is another problem that illegal immigration poses, and it is not just the sanctity of the American dream, but to its safety as well. While I have the sympathy and respect for those who wish to come to the United States and pull themselves up, there is the fear that there are those who hide amongst those individuals who wish to exploit American ideals and American citizens. These are people we now call terrorists. Let me give an example. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I was in Iraq. I was there for the day that Nation started its democracy. Contrary to what the skeptics and the cynics thought, that nation is on its way to a democracy. We know of the terrorists that come into that nation. Those terrorists are mainly not Iraqis. Those are individuals from all over the world, but they are not Iraqi citizens. They come to Iraq through their open borders of Syria and Iran. Why are we so naive to think that terrorists will not come through our open borders of Canada and Mexico and do the same thing to us? It is easily conceivable for al Qaeda members to cross our borders and put our families at risk. It is for this reason it is essential that we secure our border, because it is a national security issue. The whole world knows that America has no secure borders. We catch a few here, and we let most of them slip through. It is no secret that our enemies will continue to exploit our weakest points, and that is our borders. The tragedy of 9/ 11 has proven we are not as safe as we thought we were, and our immigration policy has to be corrected. The hijackers took advantage of our flawed immigration policies. They had expired and counterfeit documents. Some were staying in cities and sanctuaries. We will never make our country completely safe without proper border enhancement. Mr. Speaker, half of the people crossing our borders are from countries other than Mexico. They come from El Salvador, Brazil, Egypt, China, Russia, Poland and, yes, even France. They pose a challenge because deporting them is harder because their countries are further away. So here is what happens to those individuals that come to the United States illegally and are caught and are from some nation other than Mexico. After arrested, they are taken to a Federal magistrate, and the Federal magistrate releases these individuals on their word that they will show up for their deportation hearing. Most do not show up. Why are we shocked about the fact that they do not return to court for their deportation hearing? This defies common sense to have a catch- and-release policy. Detention facilities are full, so they are ordered to be released on their word to return to court. Mr. Speaker, this does not make any sense. This catch-and-release policy not only is costly, but does not work. And these individuals then carry around their summons to appear in court, and if they are stopped by some officer of the law, they show their summons, which is a pass. In other words, these individuals are released. They present and promote chaos in the United States. Let me deal specifically with the nation of Mexico. Those coming from Mexico illegally are breaking our law. Individuals from Mexico can obtain, before they even get in the United States, fake green cards. They can go to a local Mexican flea market, and there is a growing number of individuals that will provide them counterfeit Social Security cards and a counterfeit driver's license. And the Mexican administration has even created a policy to help folks who want to come to the United States illegally. I have a copy of this Guide for the Mexican Immigrant. I have some of the demonstrations of what is in this book for those individuals who come to the United States illegally. They can obtain this book through the administration of the Mexican Government, and it shows them what to do and what will occur if they enter the United States. Here is the cover, Guide for Coming to the United States as a Mexican Immigrant. Here on this panel I have some of the drawings that are in this book. It instructs individuals when to cross the United States border from Mexico. It also talks about the fact of what occurs when they are actually confronted by border security and what they can do about it. It talks about the issue of coyotes, those people who live and make money off the illegal importation of citizens into the United States. It talks about the appropriate time to cross into the United States. It talks about the fence over in California. It talks about the importance of crossing the river into the United States at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place at night so you cannot be seen. This last panel here is very interesting. We see that this individual is listening to the radio. These are supposed to be Mexican illegals that have come to the United States, and actually gives them in this book a radio channel that they can listen to in Mexico to help them come across the border or what to do once they get into the United States. Some of their questions are answered from this radio station that is broadcast from Mexico. So it does not make sense that we help fund this process of encouraging people to come to the United States in an illegal way. There is a guide provided for them if they wish to have that, and it helps those individuals assimilate into the United States. So we have to have a policy, Mr. Speaker, regarding those individuals who come here and make sure that we enforce the rule of law, enforce the concept of securing our borders.

Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues endangering our national security is not only the free flow of illegal immigrants across our border, but the policies put into place by city and local governments that provide ``sanctuary day labor hideouts'' for illegals. These day labor hideouts or centers provide illegal people work and job training. They do so under the protection of a ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy with regard to workers' immigration status and flirt dangerously close with breaking United States labor laws. The most alarming point is that centers are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. They operate using Federal funding and enjoy a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Mr. Speaker, why are we providing job training for illegals when many Americans are looking for work and job training? There are over 80 day labor centers in the United States and most of them have been open in the last 5 to 7 years, showing an alarming escalation in sanctuary hideout policies. Mr. Speaker, we will never acquire true national security until we first secure our borders. In order to do so we must bring an end to ``sanctuary hideouts'' that provide day labor centers at the expense of Americans. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, recently, Moroccan police and security forces have arrested and tortured peaceful protestors. For example, as recently as July 20th, reports indicate that Moroccan security forces abducted five human rights activists: Mohamed Elmoutaoikil, Noumria Brahim, Elhoucine Lidri, Larbi Massaoud, and Gaoudi Fdaili. According to the reports, all five of these people suffered psychological torture for long hours, humiliation, and threats of rape. Unfortunately, this was all done due to their opinion concerning the status of Western Sahara. After this incident, reports indicate that both Noumria Brahim and Lhoucine Lidri were subjected to further torture including being burned, handcuffed and blindfolded, and being brutally beaten. The Moroccan officials that perpetrated these horrendous acts of torture are reported to be the Wali of Security in EI Ayun, Brahim Bensami, and the Urban Security Group Chief Officer, Ichi Abou Hassan, and Abdelhap Rabii, a security officer. When these torturers were finished, they locked their victims in the Black Jail in EI Ayun on July 23, 2005. Reports indicate they are still being held captive. Such acts of violence and abuse against peaceful protestors and human rights activists have escalated in the last few weeks in Morocco. Other reports indicate that on July 21, 2005, a group of six Saharawi political prisoners who were arrested during a protest in EI Ayun were presented to the court of appeal in EI Ayun. The report reveals the group was tried in a show trial on June 23, 2005. They were sentenced to up to 5 years imprisonment--one of the victims of this injustice is human rights activist Bougarfa Abderrahmane. Mr. Abderrahmane is 53 years old and a father to 10 children. The others were sentenced to 3 years in prison (Hamma Achrih, Chyahou Brahim) and 2 years in prison (Mohamed Salem Essallami, Azlai Abdellah). Sources say the Court of Appeal in EI Ayun was firmly controlled by the Moroccan security forces while the trial was taking place. Some Saharawi citizens were forbidden to enter the court room. In addition, a French journalist, Agata Andre, from the newspaper Charle Hebdo, who came to EI Ayun to attend the trial of these political prisoners was put in a separate room until the Saharawi political prisoners' trial was over. Furthermore, it is reported that the families of the five activists arrested were banned from bringing food to their relatives as well as from seeing them. No telephone contact with them is possible. Unfortunately, these reports of torture and injustice are commonplace for the Saharawi people who are denied equal rights under the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. On one of Secretary Condoleezza Rice's trips overseas, Secretary Rice delivered a strong message to the King of Morocco, Mohamed VI, concerning the lack of civil liberties in the kingdom of Morocco. The Spanish newspaper, La Razon, reported on June 30th that Ms. Rice expressed her concerns regarding the Moroccan regime's continuous violations of freedom of press and of expression. Amidst recent reports of escalating repression by Morocco's intelligence and security services against dissenting voices, and the repression perpetrated against Saharawls, Ms. Rice is reportedly urged the King to bring and end to the repression and allow progressive voices to be heard. Other countries have expressed similar concerns about Morocco's human rights record regarding the Saharawis. Earlier this month in Spain, Spanish news sources reported that a Spanish delegation, composed of parliamentarians and representatives of the civil society of Aragon, was not allowed by Moroccan authorities to visit the occupied capital of Western Sahara, EI Aaiun. The delegation planned to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by Moroccan forces. One of the delegates was quoted as saying Morocco's denial of the visit was absolutely unacceptable. Morocco has been occupying Western Sahara for decades. The United Nations Security Council has continued to uphold the right of Western Sahara to self-determination. On April 29th, 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 1541 which reaffirmed support for the Peace Plan for Self-Determination of the People of Western Sahara devised by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's Special Envoy, James Baker. Two years prior, the Security Council upheld the right to self-determination in a meeting to discuss the conflict over Western Sahara. In this 2002 meeting, the Security Council rejected other proposed options and clearly stated that the only viable resolution to this conflict must be based on the Saharawi people's right to self-determination. There is a long history of international consensus that supports Western Sahara's right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice, issued on October 16, 1975 the following decision concerning the conflict over Western Sahara, ``The Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara, and in particular, of the principle of the self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the territory.'' I agree with many of my colleagues that Morocco is an important partner to the United States in our War on Terror and in international trade. However, the examples of human rights abuses that Moroccan officials have exhibited against the Saharawi people and the peaceful protestors is not the type of behavior we expect from our friends. A conclusion for the conflict over Western Sahara is long overdue. Both sides of the conflict need to come together and implement the Settlement Plan elaborated by Secretary James Baker. A great step towards a peaceful resolution would be for Morocco to release all their political prisoners, including Mr. Tamek and Mrs. Haidar, to stop detaining and torturing peaceful protestors and human rights activists, and to allow freedom of thought and expression both in Morocco and in occupied Western Sahara.

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with the base closure process currently taking place. Under the recommendations, Ellington Field in Houston, Texas, is scheduled to lose all of the F-16s and the 147th Fighter Wing. This would endanger the ability to protect southeast Texas. The base closure criteria is based upon military and strategic importance, but it also needs to factor in homeland security risk assessments as well. The F-16s at Ellington Field protect Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States. The city has two major airports. It has the largest medical center in the United States. It is, of course, the home of NASA. It has the Port of Houston, the second largest port in the United States, and two additional ports, Port Arthur and the Port of Beaumont where one-third of the military cargo goes to Iraq, not to mention the petrochemical area and the energy capital of the world. So, Mr. Speaker, I plan on introducing a resolution in Congress this week that will call on the President to factor in homeland security in the base closure process and disapprove of any recommendation unless the President is convinced that the recommendations will not adversely affect homeland security in the United States. We need to keep the F- 16s flying over Houston.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of May 14, 2005, two Denver police officers were working security at a restaurant when Raul Garcia Gomez cowardly shot them both in the back and fled into the darkness of the night. Detective Donald Young was killed. Detective John Bishop was also shot in the back, but he survived. Gomez snuck out of Denver and the United States and sought safety in his country of Mexico to prevent being prosecuted for first degree murder and attempted murder. Without dealing with the issue of Mexico's reluctance to extradite their citizens who have committed murder in the United States, Gomez had already been given a get-out-of-jail-free card in Denver because of absurd policies called ``sanctuary laws.'' In Denver, Gomez had been stopped previously three times by local police for traffic offenses. Each time he presented a Mexican driver's license. Each time he had no proof of insurance, and each time he was released even though he was here illegally. Had he been an American citizen, the fact that he had no insurance for the third time would have resulted in him being arrested and hauled off to jail. We seem to discriminate against American citizens for the benefit of illegal aliens. Anyway, the reason Gomez was released instead of deported: sanctuary laws. They are laws that stop police from arresting and detaining illegals that are here in the United States. Therefore, law enforcement officials cannot do anything to a person they discover is illegally here in the country other than let them loose back in society. In fact, some cities prohibit police from even inquiring into a person's legal status in the United States. So-called sanctuary laws prohibit officers from ``initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of the person.'' It would seem to me, and common sense would dictate, that police should know who is in the United States illegally. Have these cities not heard of the war on terror? This order was created in Los Angeles and has been adopted in the major cities in the United States. In these cities, if an illegal immigrant is caught for a minor violation, police cannot detain this individual for immigration violations despite the fact these people are committing a Federal offense by their presence in our country. This hands-off policy is absurd and these cities protect people who are illegally in the United States. Unfortunately, because of lack of enforcement of immigration laws, these sanctuaries and safe havens in the United States are growing. Some U.S. cities have actually implemented policies that provide and require these safe havens for illegal people. Mr. Speaker, in these selected hideouts, immigration laws are not enforced. These cities do not require and even some prohibit employers from reporting the illegal status to Federal officials. Creating these secret hideouts encourages illegal immigration, and Americans pay the price. Americans always pay. Officials in Houston, Texas, recently have implemented policies restricting coordination with local police and Federal authorities regarding immigration laws. And even recently the Governor of Maine has announced an executive order forbids the State from enforcing Federal immigration laws. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem and the cities that have adopted these sanctuary hideouts undermine the security of this Nation, encourage illegal immigration and promote lawlessness. All of this at the expense of Americans. However, some cities faced with the cost of free social services to illegals have a different approach. The latest is Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain of New Ipswich, New Hampshire. He is charging illegals with criminal trespassing and arresting them. After all, they are trespassing on American soil. Part of the problem is there are too few Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents within the interior of the United States. There are less than 2,000 people enforcing the immigration laws of people who are illegally in the United States and in the interior. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 800,000 law enforcement officials in the United States. They take a pledge to protect and serve every day, and they are tasked with the important job of keeping our communities safe from those outlaws who terrorize the streets. They watch out for our country, our kids, our families, and our great land. Novel idea, let these 800,000 officers help capture illegals that come across each day while they are on the police beat. They should be allies with the Federal Government and assist the Federal Government in efforts to protect our country from illegal immigrants that violate our law and disrespect the borders. Police help is essential to homeland security. Local law enforcement, those first responders are the ones that encounter illegal aliens once they have snuck into our country. These sanctuary hideouts are not the answer. There should be no sanctuary for those who violate the law. By the way, Detective Donald Young when he was murdered was shot three times in the back and in the head. He was married with two young daughters. He was 44 years of age. Detective John Bishop, shot in the back as well, only survived because of his bullet-proof vest. If the defendant had been deported upon his arrest and not given sanctuary, these officers would not have been shot. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, about half the people caught crossing our borders illegally are from some other country than Mexico. They come from places like Colombia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Egypt, Poland, the Philippines, China, Syria, Russia and even France. But the detention facilities for these illegals are full. That means many, about half, are released on their own recognizance. That means on their word they promise to return for a deportation hearing. That means they are supposed to stay here, not leave. That further means 86 percent of those individuals never return for their hearing, according to USA Today. Are we surprised? This catch-and-release policy defies common sense. It wastes the efforts of our border agents. It does not provide consequences for illegally coming to the United States. Giving illegals a get-out-of-jail-free card is further evidence the United States must have an immigration plan that works. Everybody wants to live in the United States but everybody cannot live in the United States. We must have a policy that promotes legal immigration and prevents illegal immigration. This catch-and-release policy must cease.