Ted Poe

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this legislation. Based on my experience as a judge and prosecutor for almost 30 years combined, this epidemic of methamphetamine is a disease that is affecting a lot of people. It crosses all barriers, all social economic barriers, all races, all ages, both sexes. And it is incumbent upon Congress to make sure that our local law enforcement officials have the ability to fight the war on drugs, to fight it the way they understand best, and the nationalization of this whole process is a very bad idea.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask a question, and that question is relatively simple. By what legal authority do justices of our Supreme Court use foreign world tribunals, global opinion, and the philosophy of European elites in making their decisions, those decisions that affect all Americans of this Nation? By what license, by what authority do members of America's highest court ignore our Constitution, the Constitution they took an oath to defend, and why do they cite foreign court decisions at all, decisions from England, the European Union, the World Court, Belgium, and numerous other nations? The Constitution clearly does not give them the power to abandon the scriptures of the Constitution. So where do they obtain such authority? Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way? I imagine that these justices wonder who I am to question them and their use of foreign court decisions in making laws that apply to the rest of us. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am a citizen of the Republic just as they are. I am an elected representative of this House that represents the people. Furthermore, I possess a loyal and lengthy relationship with the law. I am a former instructor in constitutional law. I was a trial prosecutor for 8 years, trying every type of criminal case from theft to kidnapping to capital murder, including cases where the death penalty was assessed and executions were actually carried out. But more recently, I spent 22 years as a felony court trial judge in Houston, Texas. I heard over 20,000 criminal cases. In fact, I suspect I heard more criminal cases in 1 year than all the nine judges of the Supreme Court decided in an equal amount of time. As a criminal court judge, I used the Constitution, particularly the first 14 amendments, every day. I made decisions that affected people, real people, defendants, victims, and the community. Those decisions affected those individuals for the rest of their lives. I determined whether individuals should lose their property, their liberty, and their freedom. Sometimes the decisions I made even resulted in those individuals losing their life. Yet every one of those 20,000 cases was rooted in the United States Constitution. Individuals who came to my court, whether they were defendants, victims, or members of the community, knew that the basis of all American law is in the Constitution. Not my personal opinion, not the rulings of foreign nations, and not the World Court. Not even what the French think. It is the Constitution that gives all courts from trial courts to the courts of appeal their foundation, their identity. If I had used any other law but that of the Constitution, I would have been removed from the bench. In the jury trials over which I presided, the jury too would take an oath to follow the law and the evidence. They were to internalize the law of the Constitution and make their decisions. They were expected to decide the case with domestic law, our law, not the law in some other nation. Mr. Speaker, if our Supreme Court uses foreign court decisions, why cannot our trial courts use foreign court decisions in their opinions? If the Supreme Court justices are our example, why cannot that example be followed by other judges in America? Is it not good for the gander what is good for the goose? Using foreign court decisions across the board would create, of course, judicial chaos, judicial anarchy. But yet the Supreme Court does exactly this. Why should the Supreme Court be left to its own devices? If there is any other standard other than the Constitution, than what is next? Mr. Speaker, looking to foreign court decisions is as relevant as using the writings in ``Reader's Digest,'' a Sears and Roebuck catalogue, a horoscope, my grandmother's recipe for the common cold, looking at tea leaves, star gazing, or the local gossip at the barber shop in Cut N' Shoot, Texas. Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way? Also, how do our justices know which foreign decisions they will embrace and which ones they will reject? Why have they discriminated and not used the decisions of our neighbors in South and Central America or even Mexico? I have personally witnessed trials in Russia and in China. Why not use those courts' decision in determining American jurisprudence? Who exactly decides what will be used to decide? Is there any longer predictability or uniformity in our legal system? Mr. Speaker, many of the judicial matters for which our justices consult the opinions of other nations deal with the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. That is a concept addressed in our very own Constitution. Just like the provisions for a jury trial are in our Constitution. Now, I ask this question: If the Supreme Court justices look to foreign courts to define what should be cruel and unusual punishment in our Nation, then I ask what is to restrain them from determining that our guarantee of a jury trial should not be modified? After all, many of the international entities that these justices confer with on judicial principles do not even subscribe to jury trials. Europeans use tribunals. In fact, they disdain the concept of the jury trial. What is next? Will someone on the Supreme Court conclude that the American jury trial system is outdated and should be abolished because it is not the European way? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor are suffering from the Black Robe disease, an incapacitating, invasive infection imported from Europe. There is a cure to the Black Robe disease, however. It is a dose of the Constitution. A strong dose of our United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, trial judges, like I was once was, deal with real people every day. Many of our Supreme Court justices, with all due respect, have for the most part only handled cases on review and on appeal. The consequences of our Constitution occur in our trial courts. Having been down there in the mud and the blood and the beer with people, I have seen the impact of the Constitution on the lives of Americans. We call those consequences justice. Our Supreme Court justices deal in judicial theory, judicial thought. Simply put, it is judicial review. We are talking about the fundamental difference between the original applications of the law and the trenches in a trial court versus the pontifications about the law on the ``mount.'' As a side note, the Supreme Court should not make law. Their duty is to review the Constitution, not revise it, not reinvent it, and certainly not rewrite it. The Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is the people's document. It is ordained by and subject to the will of the people. It should not be meddled with by anyone, including members of the Supreme Court. If we believe the Constitution delivers justice, does not injustice, on the other hand, flow from calling upon standards like foreign courts, global norms, and international organizations? Mr. Speaker, I do not criticize the results of the Supreme Court decisions. No one respects the role of the judiciary more than I do. My grave concern, however is rooted in the process and method by which the Supreme Court makes those decisions that affect the rest of us. Their use of foreign court opinions in interpreting American laws. How can the result be fair if the basis for the result is something other than the Constitution? Mr. Speaker, a historical review of a few Supreme Court decisions is in order. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, Justice John Paul Stevens maintained it would be offensive to civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years of age at the time of the offense. Referencing the views of other nations that share Anglo-American heritage, as well as leading members of the Western European community, he had tremendous confidence in this decision. Further citing the abolishment of the death penalty in nations like West Germany, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, all Scandinavian countries, and the Soviet Union, as well as the scant use of that penalty in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Justice Stevens suggested Americans should consider global norms in determining our system of criminal punishments. By what authority does he use these nations as an example for American law? Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way? When we hear, as in this case, Mr. Stevens' reference to the United Kingdom's practices, it makes one wonder whether he recalls his high school American history class. I suspect more history is in order at this point. While engaged in an intense revolution in 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, which boldly sets out the 13 colonies' desire to disband their political union with England forever. In that document, which is just down the street from this building, Thomas Jefferson penned among the list of grievances against King George of England that he combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our own laws. Americans, Mr. Speaker, fled from England and Europe because they did not want to be subject to those unfair laws. Mr. Speaker, over the course of 8 years in the American War of Independence, patriots spilled blood to secure liberty for us and preserve constitutional rights. Their will was to permanently cut the ties with England. We won the war for American independence, but in 1812 we had to do it all over again, because the British invaded the United States once again because they still wanted America to be subject to the King of England and the law of England. The British were resolute on the recapture this free Nation of America. They even burned this city. They burned this very Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Americans, however, defeated the British for a second time, showing them that we will not do things the English way, the European way or any way except the American way. Nonetheless, justices here in America across the street from this Capitol choose to use British court decisions and European thought in interpreting the Constitution of this country. What the British never could accomplish by force has our Supreme Court raised the white flag and surrendered to them voluntarily. Has the Supreme Court become like a Benedict Arnold and betrayed the Constitution for the rule of the British empire? Let us move on to other decisions by our Supreme Court. In Atkins v. Virginia, the justices once more glanced across the seas toward foreign courts, and although over a decade earlier our Supreme Court decided that decisions of international courts were not to be used in the determination of sentencing in the United States, the Supreme Court did a judicial backflip. The justices in this case now in this particular matter listened to the voice of the European Union and the global community at large in making this inconsistent decision. I ask once again, why not just use the Constitution? Is it because the Constitution does not allow them to do what they do, so they grab European law to justify the decisions that are imposed on the rest of us? Has the Supreme Court lost its way? Now let us turn to a case in my home State of Texas, the case of Lawrence v. Texas. One of the most egregious perpetrators of citing foreign court decisions is Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy referred to international standards in the court's decision and consideration of Texas laws in Lawrence v. Texas. In this instance, writing for the majority, he clung to a previous ruling handed down from one of the most excellent high courts, the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Speaker, people in Texas do not care what the European court says about much of anything, but they do care what the Constitution says. Why are we looking to Europe at all, with its not-so-glamorous history and the long lamentable catalogue of human conduct. Europe is no righteous stalwart of human rights. Europe, you remember. That part of the world that brought us two world wars in the last century. That part of the world where history is littered with episodes of massive religious intolerance and persecution of races. That part of the world where political murder and drawing and quartering were done for entertainment. All the while, a poor man could be hung for killing the king's deer. Why do we turn for advice to that civilized world? Is that not why we established our Nation to begin with? Is that not why we established the Constitution of the United States? Just recently, in April, the Supreme Court heard Small v. United States. In 1992, Gary Small shipped several multi-gallon electric water heaters from the United States to Japan. Japanese custom officials searched the container and they uncovered rifles, numerous semiautomatic pistols and several hundred rounds of ammunition. So he was tried and convicted of violating Japanese customs and weapons laws and he went to jail in Japan. Once he got out of that Japanese jail, however, about one week after he got out, he came to the United States and purchased a 9 millimeter pistol. Following a search of his residence, his vehicle and his business, U.S. Federal authorities discovered this .380 caliber pistol and several hundred rounds of ammunition. Deeming a convicted gun smuggler apprehended with additional ammunition could constitute a danger to society, Federal prosecutors, using common sense, prosecuted him under a U.S. statute which says ex- convicts for weapons violations may not possess guns. This statute, passed by this Congress prohibits, ``Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding a year to possess any firearm.'' Notice the statute says any court, it does not say U.S. court or state court, but any court. Nevertheless, when this case went on appeal, the justices of the Supreme Court trumped the law, a law that is on our books, on America's books. They concluded that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not foreign application. They determined that involving foreign convictions would raise the possibility an individual may not have the entire fairness of the American legal system. Now it appears the Supreme Court is inconsistent on which foreign decisions they will follow and which ones they will not. Is this the law of chaos? Is this the law of arbitrary decisions? Just as a side note, Mr. Speaker, the Japanese Constitution was written for the most part by General Douglas MacArthur after the end of World War II. In any event, something is amiss. This is perplexing. It is appearing that the Supreme Court is becoming inconsistent on which foreign laws they will apply and which ones they will not. With this type of reasoning, when do we accept foreign court opinions and when do we ignore them? Is there any rhyme or reason to this arbitrary justice? In a rare public debate, Justice Anthony Scalia rightly asked his colleague Justice Breyer this question: ``Do we just use foreign law selectively when it agrees with what the justice would like the case to say? You use that foreign law, and when it does not agree with you, you ignore that foreign law. Nevertheless, the use of foreign law marches on.'' The Supreme Court has also used the law of Jamaica in deciding cases to get a desired result, a result that we in America have to follow. Further, when the Supreme Court justices have cited opinions from foreign courts in far away lands like that bastion of civil rights, Zimbabwe, was that based on an overriding confidence in the inherent standards of fairness in the country of Zimbabwe and its legal system? Mr. Speaker, that dog just will not hunt. The last time I checked, Zimbabwe was an authoritarian government ruled by a cold and callous conniving Robert Mugabe, who oppresses political challengers, civil rights activists and jails representatives of the media. It appears the Supreme Court may have lost its way. It also appears that some of the justices have no intention of curbing this arbitrary and alarming habit any time soon. The black robe disease is spreading. According to Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court will rely increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues. Why? Why do that? Well, she says, because the impressions we create in this world are important. It sound like the justice makes her decisions based upon the opinions of a worldwide focus group. Listening to Justice O'Connor, one would think the Supreme Court is the agent of a popularity contest. In Justice O'Connor's view, ``The world really is growing together, through commerce, globalization, the spread of democratic institutions, immigration to America. It is becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people, and how they are going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations will be a challenge for the next generations.'' Mr. Speaker, this defies common sense. Justice Breyer argues that for years, people all over the world have cited the Supreme Court, why do we not cite them occasionally and give them a leg up, so they may then go to some of their legislators and others and say, see, the Supreme Court of the United States cites us. Well, why not just cite Reader's Digest? Mr. Speaker, this defies common sense. Justice Scalia concedes foreign authorities may prove useful in devising a Constitution, but not interpreting the Constitution. In fact, the Federalist Papers, which flush out many of the particulars concerning the Founding Fathers' vision and what they thought about America and our Constitution, has discussions of systems of government from other countries, for example, Switzerland and Germany. But there is a difference in using foreign courts and foreign thought to write a Constitution and using foreign thought and courts to interpret our Constitution now that it has been established. Justice Scalia asks, why? Why is foreign law relevant to what American judges do when they interpret our Constitution? He goes on, answering his own question. The court's discussion of these foreign views is meaningless. It is dangerous, since this court, talking about the Supreme Court, should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans. But that is what happens. That is what happens when our Supreme Court cites foreign courts in making its decisions about the United States Constitution. Justice Scalia's assessment, Mr. Speaker, is further echoed by the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, who in a dissenting opinion of Atkins v. Virginia wrote, ``The viewpoints of other countries simply are not relevant, and that global notions of justice are, thankfully, not always those of our people.'' One could even travel an additional mile, as Justice Clarence Thomas has, to suggest that citation of foreign authorities really reflects a sign of weakness, an admission that the position for which the foreign authority is cited really lacks support in the United States legal sources, specifically lacks support in the Constitution. Our Constitution is sacred, Mr. Speaker. It is not a mere list of suggestions. Its values are timeless. The Constitution is complete. It needs no help from foreign courts. America's standards are timeless, and they are in our very own Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this is not a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of stand with the Constitution and who will go the way of the wayward foreign courts. When asked during a recent ABC interview whether a day will come when the Constitution will no longer be the last word on the law, Justice O'Connor shared the following. She said, ``Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations, which also became a part of the law of the land. But I can't really see the day when we won't have a Constitution in our Nation.'' While Justice O'Connor hardly predicts the dark and dreary demise of America's Constitution, her words, Mr. Speaker, are sad. Her words fall far short of assuring us that forever and always the U.S. Constitution will be the lifeline of our land's existence. The more we hear from our Nation's top jurists like Justice Ginsberg that ``our island'' or ``lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,'' and that they ``are becoming more and more open to comparative and international law perspectives, it concerns me a great deal. The Supreme Court has lost its way, and the Black Robe disease is still infecting our court. People speak of the independence of the judiciary. Mr. Speaker, that is a legal myth. A judiciary cannot be independent of the Constitution but, rather, it must be dependent upon its words. Mr. Speaker, let us in this body, as fellow defenders of the Constitution of the United States, help all people, including those in the Supreme Court, remember our heritage. And until they decide to rejoin the cause of championing our Nation's identity, let us purposefully grip our Constitution with both hands. The Constitution does not give judges, any judges, the authority to use anything as a basis for their decisions except that very Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who I cited earlier in writing the Declaration of Independence, years later, in 1820, saw the bleak future for our judiciary and predicted future judicial subversion. He said, ``The judiciary of the United States is the subtle core of individuals and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our fabric. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing, but independence of the will of the Nation is a travesty.'' And that will of the Nation, Mr. Speaker, is the Constitution uttered straight from the will of the people. Let us remember some of its words. How about the first words of the Constitution to bring us back, back home, back to a perspective of our law. Those words that say, ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' The Constitution belongs to the people. It is ordained by the people. It does not belong to the Supreme Court for them to bend, rewrite, reinvent, or ignore it under any circumstances. Section 1 of the Constitution dictates that ``The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. I ask this question: Mr. Speaker, does citing foreign court opinions constitute good behavior? History will reveal whether it does or does not. If, however, I carried on like this in my courtroom in Texas, I would have been removed from the bench, and rightfully so. People from where I come from would not stand for a judge citing foreign courts to make decisions that affect Americans. Perhaps the Justices, Mr. Speaker, should think long and hard about the meaning of good behavior. Serving this Nation is a privilege; it is not a right. We are all accountable to the Constitution that have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. All of us in this body, this House of the people, this House of Representatives took an oath, an oath that people throughout the lands have taken, people from school boards, police officers, firefighters, city councils, mayors, big cities, and little cities, legislators, Members of Congress; all judges, State, local, and Federal, and the judges of the Supreme Court. We have all taken the same simple and solemn oath, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to the Constitution, to follow that oath. That is our duty. That is our obligation, and we can do nothing but follow that oath.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for yielding and his leadership in underscoring the lengthy, loathsome and lewd history that the United Nations possesses, a history of the deception and dishonesty and duplicity. As a former judge in Houston, Texas, for over 20 years, I believe in consequences for bad conduct. When improper behavior takes place, I do not believe that we should say to the perpetrator, the person responsible, try to do a little better. Normally, we look to the head of the organization when the organization is floundering, especially in corruption. In order for the U.N. to regain credibility, Kofi Annan must step down. Under his watch, the world's largest financial and human rights scandal has occurred. The U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal makes the Enron scandal in Houston, Texas, look like theft of a toothbrush. This U.N. scandal resulted in millions of lives languishing in Iraq. In the ongoing investigation, it appears as though Kofi Annan and his top staff may have obstructed justice, may have destroyed piles of files that many suspect reveal how he knew what was going on all along. There should be consequences, and my question is, what is the United Nation's position on the consequences in its own body for improper corrupt conduct? Why cannot the United Nations enforce basic civil rules for conduct? Let us revisit just briefly some of the accusations against the United Nations in addition to the Oil-for-Food disgrace. How about the 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo? Accusations which include prostitution, rape, pedophilia. Or what about the numerous cases of abuse among peacekeepers in the northeastern town of Bunia? This does not include previous reports of peacekeeping abuses in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Bosnia, and Somalia, and the list goes on and on. How about the tragic tales of defenseless North Korean defectors who faced deprivation or worse at the hands of U.N.-operated refugee camps? Or the investigations into the involvement of U.N. affiliates in trafficking prostitution in Kosovo? Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, some of the internal misconduct we have heard about like the allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of power, unwanted physical conduct within at least one U.N. administrative office. And let us not forget the indications that Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, may have engaged in corruption by way of the Swiss company for which he worked that inspected items going to Iraq on behalf of the Oil-for-Food program. Whether or not we ever substantiate claims that the UN's Oil-for-Food initiative has ties to international terrorism, one thing is certain: Outlaws within the ranks of the United Nations have instigated terror in the lives of people across the globe. Rather than weeping for joy at the arrival of United Nation relief, many of those people run in panic at thought of such a sordid savior touching the ground in their own country. Whatever happened to the United Nations' charter promise that advances justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and the dignity and the worth of the human person? In fact, in raising the United Nations' duty to promoting dignity and humanity, how ironic it has become that countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and even China now comprise the membership in the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights. This body must act. It must act now. And it must start with demanding that Kofi Annan step down. He is responsible for the conduct of the United Nation, because in our society we look to the head of any organization. Then let us try to aid congressional investigators in their efforts to unravel the deception and gluttony and the corruption perpetrated for years by the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make those comments; and I hope that we as a body can make a statement that the United Nations is going to be held accountable for its conduct.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to highlight the importance of free trade and the merits of agricultural trade, particularly rice trade, with Cuba. An injunction against tourism is one thing, but our sanctions against Castro's regime, which have been in place since 1963, should not prevent our Nation from selling farm products, specifically rice, to the people there. The Cuban people will eat rice. If we will not sell it to them, they will get it elsewhere. Why are we economically punishing ourselves and our farmers in the name of punishing Communists in Cuba? The Cuban market remained closed until this body passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. With the reopening mandated by this Act, rice sales to Cuba have grown to $64 million a year. But now we hear that some want to slash back this momentous trade for political reasons. The Federal Government announced it was redefining the definition of ``payment of cash in advance,'' a ruling which could jeopardize future trade. This bureaucracy is getting in the way of the law. As Cubans begin looking to Vietnam, Thailand and for other sources for rice, I urge colleagues to cosign H.R. 1339 to further explain in simple terms to government bureaucrats that U.S. farmers should be allowed to trade with Cuba on a cash-for-crop basis.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. ``I don't do it for the money . . . I don't do it for the glory . . . Providing for our future is my responsibility . . . I can't call in sick on Mondays when the weekend has been too strong. I just work straight through the holidays and sometimes all night long. You can bet that I stand ready when the wolf growls at the door . . . I am solid . . . I am steady . . . I am true down to the core . . . I'm an American soldier.'' Words from Toby Keith's ``American Soldier.'' Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of a young American soldier, Private First Class Wesley Robert Riggs, who died serving our Nation in Iraq. Private First Class Riggs, in only 19 years, had exhibited a lifetime of dedication and duty. He was killed during a patrol on May 17, 2005, near Tikrit, Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded. He was a native of Baytown/Beach City, Texas. Wesley graduated in 3 years from Barbers Hill High School in 2003. He was active in the Future Farmers of America. To Wesley's Ag teachers, he was well devoted to the curriculum and is remembered for his skills in Ag Mechanics and Meats Technology. They recall his love of fishing, hunting and anything outdoors. Before enlisting in the United States Army in 2004, Wesley spent his days like many other young Texans. He enjoyed hanging around with friends and working on cars. He liked four-wheeling and camping. He was also a member of the Houston Olympic weight lifting team. He attended Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Mt. Belvieu, Texas. Reverend Andrew Moore, Wesley's Pastor at Holy Trinity, recalls a dedicated young man that was extremely motivated and driven. He dreamed of a career in law enforcement after his years in the military. A number of his band of brothers in the military paid tribute to Wesley at his funeral service. Others commemorated him at his memorial service that I was able to attend this past Memorial Day weekend. They all spoke of a comrade who illustrated exemplary service. To date, Mr. Speaker, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our United States Army alone has lost 93 Texans in combat-related casualties. It is interesting to note that one out of every ten Americans in the United States military comes from the Lone Star State. Our military cannot replace individuals of such exceptional character as Private First Class Riggs. However, his service will provide a stirring example for the men and women who carry forward his tenacious fight against tyranny, terror and treachery. Moreover, Private First Class Riggs helped to establish a democracy, the historic start of which I was privileged to witness in Iraq this past January. Freedom does not come, Mr. Speaker, because somebody carries a sign in protest. It comes because of sacrifice. So if today we could hear from Private First Class Wesley Riggs himself, as a member once and always of the United States Army, as a member of the Infantry, called ``the Queen of Battle,'' he would resonate the remainder of Toby Keith's ``American Soldier:'' ``And I always will do my duty, no matter what the price. I have counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice . . . I don't want to die for you, but if dying is asked of me, I will bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free . . . I am out here on the front line. Sleep in peace tonight . . . I am an American Soldier, an American, an American Soldier.'' Private First Class Riggs might also hear the words that were spoken many years ago regarding the band of brothers in Henry V. He could say, inspired by Shakespeare, ``For he that sheds his blood with me is my brother. From this day to the ending of the world. But we in it shall be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.'' Private First Class Riggs, we will not forget you, an Army of one. He received the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. We thank you, Private First Class Riggs, for your service, your dedication and sacrifice to your country.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately missed the following vote on the House floor today, Tuesday, May 24, 2005. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 203 (On Ordering the Previous Question--Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for FY 2006).

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately missed a recorded vote on the House floor on Thursday, May 19, 2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 196 (On Agreeing to the Amendment--prohibiting the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.)

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations in my district, I unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Monday, May 23,2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act), and rollcall vote No. 201 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act). I strongly support these two bills because they take important steps to protect the identity and privacy of computer users. I also ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--Recognizing the 57th Anniversary of the Independence of the State of Israel). As a cosponsor of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 149, I congratulate Israel on its 57th Anniversary of Independence and their allegiance to the principles of freedom and democracy. Israel has consistently been a vital and strategic ally to the United States in the Middle East.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss national security and public safety for our country and who is responsible for that duty. Public safety, that is the first duty of government. Local security, local public safety goes to local cities and local law enforcement. National security, national public safety is the responsibility of the Federal Government. But there is an unfunded public safety mandate that is affixiating an already struggling industry: our airline industry. The airline industry is an important sector of the American economy. With increasing fuel costs and taxes, the industry lost $9 billion last year alone and has lost $32 billion since September 11, 2001. Presently, taxes and fees comprise 26 percent of a $200 airline ticket. The flights seem to be at near capacity, yet some airlines are losing money, and I want to mention just one reason why. Although the Federal Government has taken over much of the security for air travel after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airlines are still paying for national security and public safety. The airline industry forks over $777 million a year out of their own pockets for an unfunded Federal security mandate such as catering, security, security for checkpoints and exit lanes, and first class, or first flight cabin sweeps. Specifically, the people who load the peanuts on the airplanes, for example, the airlines are forced to expend $81 million, not only on their salaries, but the security checks on these caterers. The people who match your ticket with your driver's license, and then mark it up with a red Crayola at checkpoints and exit lanes, airlines, not the government, dispense roughly $80 million on these people. And the first flight cabin sweep crew that inspects the plane prior to boarding, the people who check for bombs in the bathrooms, airlines pick up a $26 million tab for them. But perhaps the largest unfunded security mandate is the Federal Air Marshal Service, the one which costs the airlines $195 million every year. Under current law Federal air marshals are permitted to fly without a cost to the Federal Government or the air marshals. They sometime fly in pairs, and sometime sit in first class seats to allow them to better protect the cockpit. But they can bump off the plane a paying passenger as well. The Air Transportation Association estimates that airlines are losing $195 million a year in opportunity costs by losing these seats. Continental Airlines, a carrier based ought of Houston, Texas, part of my Congressional district, loses $7 to $9 million a year because they cannot sell the seats used by Federal marshals to the public. I say again, national security and public safety are the responsibilities of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government wants air marshals on our airplanes, the Federal Government should pay for this service. The Federal Government should shell out the money to pay for the travel of Federal air marshals, because this is a law enforcement expense, instead of saddling the expenditure on the airplanes. Mr. Speaker, we want the Federal air marshals on our planes, and while many of their accomplishments remain below the radar, their presence on thousands of domestic flights since 9/11 have helped to maintain the safety of our skies, but the Government should pay their way. Mr. Speaker, some may argue that it is the airline's responsibility to provide for some reasonable security. Well, the airplanes already cough up scores of dollars to comply with Federal regulations. For example, the Federal Airline Administration reports that full deployment of hardened cockpit doors meeting outlined specifications have been implemented on about 10,000 airliners and foreign aircraft flying to and from the United States. Who paid for most of this, Mr. Speaker? The airlines, because the Government, our Government told them to. Still, airlines face additional expenditures in the name of safety. Video monitors and other devices to alert pilots of cabin activity as well as guns in the cockpit are just a few of the other efforts being undertaken by the industry, all of which, Mr. Speaker, cost money. If the Government does not offer financial assistance to implement these technologies, who will? Once again, it is the airlines. When will we be substantially decreasing the hundreds of millions of dollars they incur in unfunded Federal security mandates? Mr. Speaker, we must bring some relief to these carriers by reducing these unfunded mandates that they are expected to pay. I urge my colleagues to help preserve this vital industry and start imploring our Government to pay for the security of this Nation. When you are spending taxpayer money for bridges that go nowhere, funding fish hatcheries and wasting precious dollars on foreign give- away programs, we must be responsible to the country by securing the air. That is the first duty of government. Mr. Speaker, when the next airline files for bankruptcy, we will all bemoan the tragic news, but unless we change our policy the Federal Government will be responsible for putting an institution, the airline industry, on the road of economic ruin, and then we will ask the question what happened to the airlines in our skies.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Sergeant Mike Lane, a lifelong Texan, member of the Beaumont Police Department for 33 years. Each day a person who wears the badge walks the thin blue line between life and death. Their spouses wonder when their police officer mate reports for duty if that person will return safely home. Last year, 156 of them did not return home to their families. Texas, along with California, each led the Nation last year with 14 police officers killed in the line of duty. Sergeant Mike Lane was one of them. Mike Lane graduated from Beaumont High School in 1969 and received his pilot's license even prior to high school graduation at the young age of 17. He attended Lamar Tech, now Lamar University, until he decided to answer the call of law enforcement. In 1972, Sergeant Lane joined the Beaumont Police Department where his lengthy legacy began. He spent 32 years with the same police department in southeast Texas, fighting crime, helping people. A son of a retired Air Force member, Mike Lane was raised in airplane hangars all over the world from Japan to the United States. He had the passion of the Wright brothers for flying. He had aviation in his Texas blood. In the mid-80s, the Beaumont Police Department seized a plane used to smuggle drugs from Belize to Texas. After acquiring the plane, they began using it for local missions. Sergeant Lane immediately jumped at the chance to get in the pilot's seat for the citizens of Jefferson County. He was one of the two designated pilots for the Beaumont Police Department. Just as policemen are drawn together by common goals, pilots seem to congregate together as well. His partner in the sky was another pilot in the police department, Deputy Chief Weldon Dunlap. Deputy Chief Dunlap recalls, ``Mike had an amazing wealth of knowledge about aircraft. He literally ate, drank, and slept airplanes.'' When the Army gave the Beaumont Police Department two helicopters, it was only natural that Lane would be heavily involved in the helicopter operations that would come up. Any time there was a mission or training, Lane was the first in line to take part in it. On the evening of September 15, 2004, the neighboring Port Arthur Police Department reported a boat fire on Sabine Lake. Lane was one of two pilots who was called to duty for the search and rescue mission that took place that moonless night, a night that Deputy Chief Dunlap recalled was extra dark. During the flight, Lane was tasked with shining the spotlight on the large, murky, marshy Sabine Lake near the Texas-Louisiana border while the other officer maneuvered the helicopter through the intense, immense darkness that surrounded them. Flying a mere 6 feet above the lake in an effort to get closer and look for people or debris in the water, Sergeant Lane was once again fulfilling his oath to protect and serve the people. Sergeant Lane and crew made last contact shortly after 10:30 p.m. and after that, there was only silence, silence in the stillness of the damp, dark, dreary night. A helicopter search team spotted the wreckage almost 4 hours later at 2 o'clock in the morning. Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Battenfield, who was piloting the helicopter, survived the crash with minor injuries; but in the line of duty, doing what he loved and what he did best at the age of 54, Sergeant Mike Lane lost his life in the stillness of that September night. Hundreds of law enforcement members from across Texas and Louisiana traveled to South Park Baptist Church in Beaumont to pay their respects to a unique and talented officer and pilot that will never be replaced. He was laid to rest in the same church where he served as a deacon and a mentor to kids. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to participate in the Fraternal Order of Police's 24th annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service here on the Capitol grounds to remember those police officers killed last year. I was honored to join the multitude of officers and surviving family members who traveled to Washington to assure their comrades that they never walk alone. I spent time with Sergeant Lane's wife, Renee; his son Ben; and his two sisters; and I was moved by the memories they had of their husband, their father, and their brother. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 800,000 members of the law enforcement community in this Nation. They wear the badge, and with that badge they become a cut above the rest of us. They do what most of us would not do. They watch out for our country, our kids, our family and our great land. In 2004, 156 officers were killed in the line of duty. Last year, our military lost nearly 900 of its band of brothers during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while we often pay daily tribute to our fallen military who have been combating outlaws across the sea, these warriors against domestic outlaws, our police officers, often remain nameless, statistical heroes. When President Bush spoke this last weekend, he stated that every generation of Americans has produced men and women willing to stand in watch over the rest of us. They are peace officers. When Sergeant Lane lost his life on the Sabine Lake that night, he did not die alone. His conviction, courage, and character live on and his spirit watches over his friends and family and the citizens of Jefferson County, Texas, that he devoted his life in protecting. Thank you, Sergeant Mike Lane.

Mr. POE

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

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

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I applaud the chairman for this bill to better protect America. I would, however, like to highlight an unfunded Federal security mandate on the already struggling airline industry. The airline industry is an important sector of the American economy, with increasing fuel costs and taxes, though the industry lost $9.1 billion last year alone and has lost $32 billion since September 11, 2001. Currently taxes and fees comprise 26 percent of an average $200 airplane ticket. While the Federal Government has taken over much of the security for airlines after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airlines are still paying $777 million annually out of their own pocket for unfunded Federal security mandates, such as catering security, security for checkpoints and exit lanes, and first flight cabin sweeps. The people loading the peanuts, for example, the airlines are forced to expend $81 million on not only their salaries, but the security checks on these caterers, the people who mark your ticket up with the red crayon at the checkpoint and exit lanes. Airlines, not the government, dispense $79 million on these folks, and the first class cabin sweep crew that inspects the plane prior to boarding, the people who check for bombs in the bathrooms, airlines pay $26 million for them. Perhaps the most and largest unfunded mandate, however, is the Federal Air Marshal Service, which costs the airlines $195 million each year. Under current law, Federal air marshals are permitted to fly without a cost to the Federal Government or the marshal. Air marshals fly to better protect the cockpit. The Air Transport Association estimates the airlines are losing $195 million a year in opportunity costs by losing these seats. Continental Airlines, for example, the carrier based out of Houston, Texas, part of which is in my Congressional district, loses between $7 and $9 million in displaced revenue annually. This estimate reflects losses not from being able to sell the Federal air marshal's seat at full fare. Moreover, Continental will pay the Department of Homeland Security $239 million in taxes in 2005 and is currently paying another $312 million in unfunded security mandates. So my amendment would simply prohibit funds being spent in the bill to support this unfunded Federal security mandate that allows the Federal Air Marshal Service to fly for free. The Federal Government has deemed aviation security a national security issue, as it is. It is only fair that the government fully assume these costs, and not saddle them on the airlines. In fact, at least two laws signed in the past two sessions have provisions that support Congressional intent for the Federal Government to reasonably pay for aviation security costs. Both the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Vision 100, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, authorized funds for reimbursement of airport security mandates. The Poe amendment preserves the ability of Federal air marshals to fly on our airlines, protect our passengers and crew, but it would allow the carriers to charge the government a fare. Airlines like Continental support this amendment because it would enable them to collect a minimal fare, the government fare or the lowest fare available upon booking for Federal air marshal seats. Mr. Chairman, some may argue that it is the airline's responsibility to provide for security, and they are partially correct. Already airlines cough up scores of dollars to comply with Federal regulations. The Federal Airline Administration reports that full deployment of hardened cockpit doors meeting outlined specifications have been implemented on about 10,000 passenger airlines and foreign aircraft flying to and the from the United States. Expenditures on video monitors and other devices to alert pilots to cabin activity as well as guns in the cockpit are just a few of the other efforts undertaken by the airline industry, all of which are in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars they incur in unfunded Federal security mandates. We must bring some relief to these carriers by reducing these unfunded Federal mandates that they are expected to pay out of their pocket. I urge my colleagues to help preserve this vital industry and start by supporting my amendment to allow airlines to collect the minimal government fare on seats filled by Federal air marshals. We want to keep the airlines flying and help them before they are in a situation of bankruptcy.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on my amendment No. 10 to the end that it stand rejected by voice vote thereon.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an almost 80-year-old veteran from my southeast Texas district. A dedicated American, a charter member of the greatest generation, Private James McClammy this weekend finally received the honors due him after 60 years. A bit of history is in order, Mr. Speaker. Private McClammy was born in Canton, Mississippi, in the mid-1920s. James McClammy grew up during the Great Depression. Times were tight, tough and hard. Mr. Speaker, he was a depression baby, as he calls himself. His family moved to Poke County, Texas, just outside of Livingston. That is in the Piney Woods of deep east Texas. He was the son of a State highway worker. And although he lived in a peaceful country atmosphere, the world would soon be at war again. This teenager would be like thousands of other Americans; he, too, would go off to war. With the outbreak of World War II, Mr. McClammy was drafted right out of high school. A strapping 18-year-old, he has answered that call with abiding courage. He began his basic training in the Lone Star State at Fort Sam in San Antonio and then in Camp Walters, Texas. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that my dad about the same time was going through basic training at Camp Walters, Texas, and he, too, served in the great World War II in Europe. At any event, Private McClammy later was sent to Fort Benning, Georgia, for jump school to complete airborne training. Following the D-Day landings, Private McClammy was assigned to the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division's Easy Company and was deployed to Holland. Having been a member of the famous Screaming Eagles for less than 4 months, this young private was about to experience a day he would never forget. It was Sunday the 17th, Mr. Speaker, a perfect Sunday in September of 1944. Private McClammy was one of more than 30,000 Americans and allied paratroopers involved in Operation Market Garden. They were charged with the important yet extremely perilous mission of descending into German-occupied Holland. Their objective was to secure the bridges across this occupied country's rivers so the allied forces could avoid the German defense line, the Siegfried line. One of these bridges was referred to in the military history as a Bridge Too Far. The 101st traveled swiftly northwards and into the lowlands of Germany. If their valiant jump attempts were successful, many believed the war could be over by Christmas, but this was not to be. Private McClammy recalls the morning of the daylight jumps. He says, ``My memory is not as good as it used to be, but it was a beautiful day and there was no enemy fire. Our goal was to capture and hold a bridge, a railroad bridge in Veghel, Holland, to prevent the German Army from seizing and destroying it. While the Germans were initially caught off guard by the airborne landings, they were by no stretch of the imagination defeated.'' The jump into Holland was unlike any of Private McClammy's other jumps because there was no swinging around after his chute opened. Because they were so close, they jumped and almost immediately hit the ground. During the mission, Private McClammy's personal duties were clear: move forward, capture the bridge. The Screaming Eagles 501st Regiment was led by Colonel Howard Johnson. With all of but one of his battalions descending as planned into the drop zone near Veghel, Colonel Johnson's men, including Private McClammy, marched steadfastly into the city where they successfully completed their mission and held and followed their orders: hold until relieved. He says, ``We held the bridge and then got relieved by another unit. It wasn't until later in the day that the enemy fire started.'' While he completed that day's work unscathed, the next week he was not as fortunate. On September 23, the Germans started shelling and they continued to shell. Amidst an artillery barrage, a nearby shell explosion sent shrapnel flying into Private McClammy's hip. He was the sole survivor because three of his teenage friends, other members of the 101st, were killed in that attack. He was trapped for several days, and finally evacuated to a field hospital in Belgium where they operated on him. He was then flown to a facility in England where he spent the remainder of September until early December recovering from his wound. At that point, he traveled on a crowded ship back to the United States where he boarded a train from South Carolina to Texas that stopped at various cities in the southern United States to drop off wounded veterans. Private McClammy was discharged after the war and, like many of his band of brothers, never learned he had earned the Bronze Star for his action in World War II. It was only recently that a friend and fellow soldier from the Easy Company, Willie Ray Fox, brought this to his attention. Mr. McClammy tried for 2 years to get his medal without success. In March, he contacted my Jefferson County office, and he was awarded those medals last week. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the military and members of my office for helping to find him those medals, and they were, Mr. Speaker, the World War II Victory Medal, the Combat Infantry Badge 1st Award, the Honorable Services Lapel Button, the World War II Parachutist Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. We thank Private McClammy for his service. We thank him for being a good American. We thank him for his service. As Shakespeare wrote many years ago about the band of brothers: ``From this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remembered--We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.''

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Chairman, I spent 22 years as a judge in Texas trying criminal cases, felonies; 22,000 felony cases came through my court. They dealt with everything from major theft to capital murder cases. And a lot of those cases were gang cases. And the people in this country who believe and think that gangs are not a problem are sorely mistaken. It was the action operative of the gangs in the Houston area to use juveniles to commit serious crimes, violent crimes, because those very juveniles and these gang leaders knew that juveniles would be treated differently, as they were. These gangs would almost laugh at the criminal justice system because the juveniles would not face the same type of punishment as adults. This portion of the bill that treats juveniles in some cases the same as adults is a good idea, because, in our country, victims continue to be discriminated against based on the age of offenders. Those days need to end, especially with gang members. This is an important issue. I, too, like the previous speakers are concerned about whether this is a States' rights issue or not. But gangs cross State lines. No longer are they just a local terrorist community. And they are terrorists, Madam Chairman. We, at this time, are engaged in a war against international terrorists. We need to be concerned about the street terrorists who roam our neighborhoods and commit violent crimes in the name of some type of gang. A specific powerful enemy to the United States is the MS-13 gang. We need to be concerned about them because they are a terrorist group. They are gang members. So the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. We do that abroad. We need to do it against those street terrorists that live among us. I support this bill.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for his kind words and for his insight into this important issue. Mr. Speaker, as most Americans go about being concerned about jobs, Social Security, the environment, health care, crime, outsourcing, all of those things are important. Many of those issues will eventually end up in our courts. Some of those cases will find their way to the Supreme Court, and while this issue is somewhat complex, it is not that difficult to understand. The Constitution is the Bible for our democracy. Words mean something, Mr. Speaker, and the words of the Constitution are words that we must live by, that we must stand by and that we must defend. I hope that most Americans, regardless of who they are, what their political beliefs are, understand that our Constitution came about because of sacrifices of Americans, many of whom we will never know the names of, that fought first in the War of Independence and numerous wars after that, because we are a unique land, Mr. Speaker. We are a unique people, Mr. Speaker, and the pinnacle of our uniqueness is the Constitution of the United States. Every public official in this country, school board members, police officers, city councilmen, firefighters, members of the State legislatures, judges throughout our entire Nation and Members of this body took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is who our oath and our allegiance is made to, and all we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the Supreme Court come back home, follow their oath, be beholden to the United States Constitution and not to foreign countries.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his dedication to the Constitution, to making sure that the Members of this body are committed to that and reminding the Supreme Court that they have an obligation to that Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a former judge, a former appellate judge from east Texas. The east Texas folks kind of think maybe a little differently than the Supreme Court does on using foreign law to make decisions that are binding on the rest of us. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, ``I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I am about to enter, so help me God.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the judicial oath that justices of the United States Supreme Court take to uphold America's Constitution, the sacred manuscript our Nation was established upon, the foundation of who we are. Yet, Mr. Speaker, some of the same justices who preside over the highest court in our land are systematically unraveling the threads of the very Constitution they vowed to protect. In what amounts to a most disturbing development, the United States Supreme Court continues to flirt with the temptations of foreign court decisions and the lure of opinions of international organizations. They do this in the interpretation of our American Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this trend is terribly troubling. Has the Supreme Court lost its way? As a former Texas judge for over 22 years, having heard 25,000 criminal cases, I took the same oath as our Supreme Court justices, to uphold the United States Constitution. Never once did I make a decision based upon the way they do things in other countries. My oath was to our Constitution, not to the Constitution of the member countries of the European Union, such as France. America should not confer with the decisions of any of the hundreds of foreign powers on our planet. As Anthony Scalia, our justice on the Supreme Court has said, ``those decisions are irrelevant in the United States.'' In 1776, amidst a revolution, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence which stated brazenly and boldly the 13 colonies desire to dissolve political bonds with England. In this document, Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson penned among the list of grievances against King George the following statement: He said of King George, ``He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws.'' Mr. Speaker, 10,000 to 14,000 patriots over the course of 8 years in the American War of Independence spilled their blood or died to secure liberty for us and safeguard our constitutional rights. The purpose was to sever ties with England forever. Then, in 1812, the British invaded the United States again. The British still wanted America to be subject to the King and their ways. They burned this very city, including our Capitol. President Madison and his wife, Dolly, fled Washington, D.C. in the damp darkness of the dreadful night to escape the invaders. The British were determined to retake this free Nation of America and this very soil on which I stand today. Americans defeated the British a second time to make them understand that we will not do things the English way. Now, justices in this land of America, across the street from this very Capitol, use British court decisions and European thought in interpreting our Constitution. What the British could not accomplish by force, our Supreme Court has surrendered to them voluntarily. Has the Supreme Court handed over our sovereign Constitution to other nations? Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way? The Constitution is the basis for who we are, what we believe, and what our values are. My colleagues will notice, Mr. Speaker, the oath our judges take is to the Constitution; not to the government, not to the President. It is to the Constitution. That is because the Constitution is the supreme authority of the land. It is our identity. It is our path to justice for all Americans. The Framers of the Constitution made clear their vision for the Federal judiciary. Named in Article III behind both of the other branches of government, the Founders intended a court system with a narrow scope and restricted authority. As Alexander Hamilton explained in one of the Federalist Papers, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be the least in its capacity to annoy or injure them. He states that the judicial branch is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power. Mr. Hamilton continued in his Federalist Papers, the executive dispenses the honors, holds the sword of the community. The legislature commands the purchases, prescribes the rules by which the duties and the rights of every citizen are regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purchases, no discretion, either of the strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but just judgment. Mr. Hamilton was wrong. History now reveals that the Supreme Court has become the most powerful of all the branches of government, although it was intended to be the weakest. And the people of this country cannot hold them accountable for their actions. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, an alarming number of judges deem the Constitution a bendable document, more like a catalog of suggestions rather than the rule of law; a set of elastic principles which, at the end of the day, can be easily interchanged with the judge's own personal policy and emotional agenda. As one author on the topic of our judges has put it, they see their role limited only by the boundaries of their imaginations. And in the case of consulting foreign statutes to determine rulings here in the United States, a majority of our nine Supreme Court Justices even encourage it. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for example, has said that although international law and the law of other nations are rarely binding on decisions in the United States and its courts, conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community should, at times, constitute persuasive authority in American courts. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they are rarely binding, who decides when they are binding? Is this arbitrary justice? My question is, when do foreign court decisions matter, and when do they not matter? Do our judges pick and choose foreign decisions that they like and ignore those they personally do not like? Do they pick and choose to get a desired result? Mr. Speaker, this is constitutional chaos. In one of her books where she shares her reflections on being a Supreme Court Justice, she goes on to say that she believes American judges and lawyers can benefit from broadening their horizons. I know from my experience, she says, at the Supreme Court that we often have much to learn from other jurisdictions. We Supreme Court Justices will find ourselves looking more frequently to decisions of constitutional courts, especially common law courts that have struggled with the same constitutional questions that we have. International law is no longer a specialty; it is vital if judges are to faithfully discharge their duties. Mr. Speaker, all judges, all lawyers in the United States take oaths to faithfully discharge their duties to the United States Constitution. None of us took an oath to faithfully discharge international law and the duty to international law. Has the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, lost its way? Another judge on our Supreme Court, Justice Ginsberg, also subscribes to the importance of international jurisprudence on the Court. She thinks the premise is wrong that you only look to your friends. She has asked why, if judges are free to consult commentary, restatements, treaties, writings of law professors, law students and law reviews, they should not analyze an opinion from, get this, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights. In her view, the United States judiciary will be poor if we do not both share our experience with and learn from legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own. On a C-SPAN broadcast last month, another Justice, sympathetic to the use of international law and foreign court decisions, indicated that the Supreme Court is faced with more and more cases in which the laws of other countries apply. Where there is disagreement is how to use the law of other nations where we have some of those very open-ended interpretations of the word ``liberty,'' and interpretations of the phrase ``cruel and unusual punishment.'' This Justice believes it is appropriate in some instances to look to how other foreign courts may have decided similar issues. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what difference does it make how they do things in lands far, far away? In 2002, Justice Paul Stevens in Thompson v. Oklahoma raised global norms regarding a particular type of punishment in his opinions. He states the conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years of age at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views that have been expressed by respected professional organizations, by other nations that share Anglo-American heritage, by leading members of the Western European Community, the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, who have all formally expressed opposition to the death penalty for juveniles. Although the death penalty has not been entirely abolished, he says, in the United Kingdom or New Zealand, in neither of these countries may a juvenile be executed. The death penalty has been abolished in West Germany, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, and all Scandinavian countries, and is available only for exceptional crimes such as treason in Canada, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. He concludes by saying, juvenile executions are also prohibited in the Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how we feel about the execution of juveniles, the question, Mr. Speaker, is not what they do in the Soviet Union, but what does the United States Constitution say about this issue. Has the Supreme Court, once again, lost its way? The same year, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Court once again looked to foreign courts; and while only 13 years earlier our Supreme Court decided that decisions of foreign courts were not to enter into the determination of sentencing in the United States, the Supreme Court did the judicial flip-flop. Justice Stevens concluded in this case that there is a national consensus in reaching his opinion. Does this mean the end justifies the means? In the footnotes explaining his decision, the Justices indicated they looked to briefs filed by religious groups, psychologists, polling data, and a brief offered by the European Union, a brief that was used eventually as blanket consensus, the voice of the global community at large. Well, what about the Constitution? Why not use the Constitution as our guide and only guide in making decisions by the Supreme Court? But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most egregious perpetrator of citing foreign court opinions is Justice Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy continues to write decisions hardly based on the Constitution, but on international law. Which law is he beholden to? Is the Constitution not sufficient for him? In 2003, in a high-profile case involving my home State of Texas, the case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy referred to international standards in the Court's consideration of Texas laws. Revealing the Court's reliance on the views of a wider civilization, the majority opinion was inspired by previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Well, who put the European Court of Human Rights in charge of us? This year, in March, Roper v. Simmons, writing for a 5-4 majority, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote, we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society to determine what punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual. In making this decision, the majority judges looked to foreign lands to interpret what cruel and unusual means in our Constitution. In dissenting, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas, on the other hand, said they do not believe that approval of other nations and people should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than disapproval by other nations and people should weaken that commitment. Mr. Speaker, I realize the Constitution is an old document, well over 200 years; but this idea of ``evolving standards of decency'' is simply ridiculous. Values are timeless. American values are timeless. American standards are timeless, and they are in the Constitution. The list of decisions against our Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is a deep cavern of vile destruction. Other verdicts handed down by the Supreme Court include citations of legal opinions from foreign courts in Jamaica, India, and the ultimate beacon of justice, Zimbabwe. Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way? Let me give my colleagues an analogy. If, as a judge, I had a thief, a shoplifter appear before me who had stolen many times before and I ordered that his hand be chopped off in the public square, I suspect his attorney would object, saying, this violates the constitutional provision of cruel and unusual punishment in the eighth amendment. While the attorney would be correct based upon our Constitution, my response could well be, well, Mr. Lawyer, they chop hands off in other countries for this type of crime, so since other countries do it and they find it logical, I will accept these foreign courts in making my decisions. Mr. Speaker, in Texas, I would have been removed from the bench for such nonsense. So why do we tolerate our Supreme Court using this same rationale going to foreign courts in their decisionmaking? Mr. Speaker, these controversial decisions that have emerged from our Supreme Court have prompted a growing contingent of former judges in this body to join me in signing a letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I, along with my fellow gentlemen from Texas, (Mr. Carter) (Mr. Hall) (Mr. Gohmert), as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), all former judges in their respective States, have urged our Senate colleagues to consider a nominee's allegiance to the United States Constitution and the sovereignty of the United States when imparting their advice and consent role in the Presidential appointment process in our Senate. When any court in the United States, Mr. Speaker, begins to permit foreign sentiments to ooze into its rulings and opinions, it dangerously weakens our sovereignty. These irresponsible allowances erode our unique political identity and the sound traditions upon which American law is established. From the mere founding of our country, our laws and courts have respected and honored the sovereignty of the United States and the supremacy of our Constitution. My colleagues will notice, Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing or criticizing the results of the Supreme Court decisions and their holdings. I have been careful not to comment on the results of these numerous cases where the Supreme Court reaches out to foreign courts to make their decision. While somewhat relevant, since these decisions are the law of the land, the complaint is the process and method by which the Supreme Court makes decisions. The use of foreign courts, emotions, personal opinions, result-oriented decisions, personal agendas, feelings and the opinions of focus groups is, as Justice Scalia says, totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the Constitution. Unfortunately, we now seem to have some jurists in our Supreme Court who have lost their way, their balance. They have forsaken the process founded by our forefathers. They are disregarding boundaries etched into the foundation of our Constitution. Justice Scalia may be one of the last strongholds we have against judicial tyranny in today's Supreme Court. He understands the importance in honoring the original meaning of the constitution, that it is the supreme law of the land. He rightly maintains that foreign pronouncements are totally irrelevant when it comes to our courts and our Supreme Court in making their decisions. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of who will stand with the Constitution and who will stand with foreign courts. I urge my colleagues in both chambers to support measures that aim to curb the way our Supreme Court makes its decisions, that they should be responsible to the Constitution of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, warned in an August 18, 1821, letter to a friend, Charles Hammond, a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court, he says, that is Mr. Jefferson: The germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the Federal judiciary, working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today, a little tomorrow, advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped. Mr. Jefferson was a prophet of what has become judicial anarchy. Some northeastern legal scholars, intellectual elites that sit in cigar- filled rooms agree with the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court justices, justices that use these foreign laws, because they like the results. But I warn these folks, the Supreme Court may not always make decisions you agree with, and they may betray you by ignoring the Constitution and citing foreign laws that create a different result than you wish. Then you will cry: Return to the Constitution; return to our sacred scripture. When your cries are made to our courts, you may too find no one is listening. As guardians of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, as champions of the separation of power, as accountants of the system of checks and balances, as the stewards of this legislative branch, we must implore our judiciary, our Supreme Court justices to reject the seduction of comparable side glances as they interpret the laws of this land. I ask the Supreme Court to come back home, home to the Constitution and reject the lustful temptation of foreign countries and their laws. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) such time as he must desire to speak on this very issue.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a sterling individual in my Southeast Texas District--the Mayor of Beaumont--Mrs. Evelyn Lord. Following an over-two-decade-long tradition of service to Jefferson County, she will step down from office on May 17th. Through the years, Mayor Lord has left an indelible imprint on the Beaumont community and while she is entitled to a well-deserved break, she undoubtedly will be missed. Mayor Lord began her legacy in local government in 1980 when she was elected to the first of two terms on the Beaumont City Council. Her plans to run for office in 1984 were cut short when her husband and close confidant, Sam, was transferred to Northern Ireland by his employer. Towards the end of 1988, however, she returned to Beaumont and was elected mayor two years later. Mayor Lord then served two successful terms and retired in 1994. At a critical juncture in the City's history, she was encouraged to return to public life and in 2002 was once again elected to the mayorship. Only when she was certain that the City was on the path to healing did she decide to forego a fifth term as Mayor. During her tenure, Mayor Lord remained keenly aware of the unique threats that the Beaumont area could face in a post-September 11 environment. Accordingly, she shepherded the efforts to develop a distinct homeland security plan for Southeast Texas, which has served as a model state-wide. And, realizing that quality of life issues are often the basis for community revitalization, she spearheaded the creative charge to improve Beaumont's park system through public- private partnerships. Demonstrating the high regard in which she is held among her peers, Mayor Lord was elected to the Board of Directors of the United States Conference of Mayors and served in such key positions as Chair of the organization's Arts and Recreation Standing Committee and as a member of its Homeland Security Task Force. Even before she came to Beaumont, Mayor Lord was a committed public servant wherever Sam's career opportunities led them. She was elected as a State Senator in the State of Delaware and served as an Administrative Assistant to a County Judge in Kentucky. In Beaumont, she served with distinction in many capacities, including Vice President of Texas Commerce Bank and as Chairwoman of the Texas State Spindletop Centennial Commission. Finally, few charitable organizations in Beaumont have escaped Mayor Lord's helping hand, highlighted by her work at the United Way, Texas Energy Museum, Boy Scouts, Julie Rogers ``Gift of Life'' Program, Chamber of Commerce, and Community Partners for Children. Mayor Lord's leadership at Beaumont City Hall will always be remembered and her accomplishments will be felt throughout the community for years to come. Nonetheless, I am confident that she will not disappear from public life entirely and I join all of those in Texas' Second Congressional District in wishing her and Sam the best as they enter this exciting new phase of their lives. As Margaret Thatcher once said, ``Success is having a flair for the thing that you are doing; knowing that is not enough, that you have got to have hard work and a sense of purpose.'' Mayor Lord . . . she has that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POE

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

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Cinco de Mayo. I rise to recognize and remember the importance of this day and salute the millions of Mexicans and Americans of Mexican descent that will celebrate throughout the Americas this day, this important day. While the War Between the States was raging in the 1860s, at the same time, on May 5 in 1862 an undersized, inadequately armed band of Mexicans determined to defend their land, fought a lopsided contest against their oppressors, those oppressors who were invading their homes. Many people assume that Cinco de Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day from Spain, but that is not correct. Mexico's actual Independence Day is September 16, 1821. Some 40 years after Mexico achieved independence from Spain, their country was once again threatened, this time by the French. And that year, Napoleon III sent a massive, mighty military force to Mexico to unseat President Benito Juarez. The French plan was to overthrow Juarez and take over the country. However, their overconfidence brought about their proudful downfall. They even brought along a Hapsburg prince, Maximilian, to be the new king over the Mexican empire. They were sorely mistaken in their ideal. Napoleon's French army had not been defeated in 50 years and did not expect to lose this battle with these people. This distinguished, well- trained Army marched in with the finest equipment and the arrogance to go along with it. The French were not afraid of anything, but they should have been. Little did they know that the Mexicans would give them a fight to remember. On May 5, 1862, the French Army left the Port of Vera Cruz to attack Mexico City. The French assumed that if they could take down the capitol, all of Mexico and their people would surrender. The Mexicans were under the command of a Texas-born general, General Ignacio Seguin Zaragosa, and they waited and waited for the French, determined, diligent, and dedicated to defending this land. As the French Army headed to Mexico City, they were halted on the way. On May 5, 1862, while the cannons roared and rifle shots rang out, the French attacked 2 Mexican forts. Before the day was over, more than 1,000 French soldiers were dead. Against all odds, this hastily-assembled Mexican Army had routed the French imperialism in the city of Puebla, despite being outnumbered 2 to 1. The French left Mexico, and they have never returned. So Cinco de Mayo is a day of celebration in Mexico as well as the United States. In my home State of Texas, where there are over 6 million Americans of Mexican descent, there are numerous celebrations taking place all over the State and in towns on this date. Cinco de Mayo is a wonderful opportunity to salute the contributions being made by all Hispanics in the Lone Star State and all of America. In my district, the second district of Texas, we have over 80,000 Hispanic members of the community. I feel fortunate to represent and live in a community that benefits from the dynamic presence of this richly proud culture. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to join all Americans and all Mexicans in recognition of this important day in history. The Mexicans who fought and died on a battlefield near Puebla 143 years ago represent the ideal and spirit of all humans, no matter what their race or their culture, to be free and be a free people. Their determination embodied a spirit of freedom and patriotism. Cinco de Mayo is a chance for everyone to remember how essential our freedom is, how difficult it is to obtain, and how vigilant we must remain to defend it, no matter the cost.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman on this bill. It is important that we take care of business with our military. Mr. Speaker, having been to Iraq this year, I saw our troops, our young men and women from all branches of the service doing the finest job ever representing the concept of freedom and representing the United States; and they certainly need the supplemental. However, I am concerned about some of the baggage that seems to have been added to the supplemental. And I think maybe in the future we should be careful about adding things that are not really important emergencies, such as in this supplemental conferring eligibility for rural housing assistance grants in the village of New Miami, Ohio; allowing some farm service accounts for the Alaska dairy farmers; increasing the cost of the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Project in Minnesota; and adding to the National Center for Manufacturing Services in Michigan; along with $500,000 for the oral history of negotiated settlement projects at the University of Nevada. I think these belong in some other bill. They may be great projects, but they certainly are not emergency projects. But I do urge all Members of the House to support this legislation.