Ted Poe

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, TSA is the government agency that is supposed to keep us safe at airports, safe from would-be terrorists that would go through screening and get on America's airplanes. It comes about as a result of the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. Anybody who flies has been through firsthand--no pun intended--the TSA experience at airports. I, like many Members of Congress, go through TSA screening two times a week, back and forth from my district in Texas. I know numerous TSA employees. Many of them are my friends. My comments today are not about the TSA employees, but recent news reports about what is taking place at TSA generally, and these news reports are disturbing, Mr. Speaker. Recent internal investigation has revealed that 67 out of 70 times banned items got through TSA screening at airports through undercover investigations. That is a 96 percent failure rate or, looking at it the other way, that is a grade of 4. TSA gets a grade of 4, Mr. Speaker. Now, one example, there was an instance where a TSA screener failed to find a fake bomb strapped to the back of an undercover agent going through screening. This was even after the fake bomb set off the magnetometer. They still didn't find it. Now, isn't that lovely? Good thing it was a fake bomb. Fortunately, this was a test. This was part of the undercover investigation. It was not a terrorist seeking mischief at America's airports. There is more alarming news. Not just the fact that the investigation shows a grade of 4 in folks that are going through the security system, it is also reported this week that TSA failed to identify 73 airport workers who were linked to terrorism. Now, what is this? These are not TSA employees. These are the folks that work behind the security area in the airport, and TSA was not able to identify 73 airport workers linked to terrorism. Now, isn't that lovely? These people, you see, are the people who go to the airport every day, maybe sometimes go through a special line to get behind the security area. TSA claims it didn't have access to the terror watch list information, so it couldn't identify these potential bad guys. I personally find that difficult to believe that the agency in charge of security at the airport is not able to get security background information about people that work behind security at the airport. In any event, that is not an acceptable excuse for this type of action. You know, Mr. Speaker, a grade of 4 would not be acceptable anywhere, anyplace in our society, at a business, at school, anywhere, the TSA grade of 4. I will give you another example. Let's say you want to have a home security system at your residence, and you go out and you solicit different folks that are in the home security business. You meet one sales rep, and you start asking the sales rep, ``How good is the security system?'' The security guy says, ``Well, we have a grade of 4. We have a 4 success rate. 96 percent failure rate.'' You probably wouldn't hire that guy to install the security system on your home. If you ask him a few more questions and he says, ``We are not only in charge of the security for your home, but we secure the folks that work on your residence when you are gone to work, the plumber, the welder, or the guy who comes in your house, whatever,'' then if you found out that those people who are allowed to go in your home and work through this security system have a reputation for being burglars, you probably wouldn't hire this security agency to do the security on your home. That is exactly what is happening at our airports. The success rate is only 4. We wouldn't hire that agency to do our home, but yet here is the agency that we have to guard our airports. This is not an indictment about TSA employees, but I think it is an alarming concern about TSA's general management. The problem is the TSA model of security. It can only get a grade of 4--which would not be acceptable under any system. You know, there really can't be mistakes and errors like this at our Nation's airports. One thing that we could do, one consideration is we could go to private screening at our airports. The law allows for that. Airports ought to consider those private screeners and maybe think it through, whether or not that is a better alternative to the TSA system that gets a grade of 4. And that is just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts aid to Pakistan in half. Pakistan is the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of countries that we call our allies. Before Osama bin Laden met his maker in 2011 in one of the greatest U.S. military raids ever conducted, bin Laden was living in plain sight in a bustling military town. To think that the most senior levels of the Pakistani Government did not know that he was there requires, as Secretary Clinton said, ``the willing suspension of disbelief.'' This February, the former head of Pakistan's version of the CIA, called the ISI, said that Pakistan most likely sheltered Osama bin Laden. And just last month, three U.S. intelligence sources told NBC News that Pakistan knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding all the time. Not only did Pakistan not help us get Osama bin Laden, Pakistan threw the doctor who did help us under the bus and put him in jail for 33 years for cooperating with America. Pakistan did not help us because Pakistan was working with Osama bin Laden. Newly released documents retrieved from bin Laden's compound show that Pakistan's intelligence service was in contact with bin Laden and was working with him to convince U.S. leaders to negotiate with al Qaeda. There are some who say we need Pakistan to help us fight the war in Afghanistan, but Pakistan is on the wrong side. Pakistan is helping the terrorists, not us. Pakistan's intelligence service gives safe haven, resources, and training to terrorist groups, like the Haqqani network that has killed dozens of Americans. On September 22, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our Embassy.'' The truck bombing he mentions wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO troops. Admiral Mullen went on to say: ``The Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.'' Throughout 2011, Pakistan tried to cheat the United States by filling out bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after terrorists when they weren't even doing that. That is the same account this money funds. There are others who say we need Pakistan's southern supply route to help our troops in Afghanistan. But for 7 months in 2012, Pakistan closed off the supply route, and we did just fine. What we really need access to is Pakistan's tribal areas. Terrorists that kill our troops in Afghanistan run back and forth across the Pakistan border and hide in these tribal areas, but Pakistan won't let our troops chase them there. And so the terrorists kill Americans, and they get away with it. Pakistan did do some military operations in the tribal areas last year, but they tipped off the Haqqani network before they got there that they were coming. Pakistan tipping off terrorists is nothing new. Last fall, Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense at the time of the bin Laden raid, says of the Pakistanis, ``We just can't trust them.'' I agree. We can't trust Pakistan. My amendment does not cut money to protect Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The amendment does recognize the U.S.-Pakistan relationship for what it is. We don't need to pay Pakistan to be our enemy; they will do it for free. Pakistan has already received over $30 billion of our money since 2002. After 13 years of giving Pakistan more and more money, it is time to do something different. My amendment simply cuts the money we give Pakistan in half. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the committee. Pakistan cannot be trusted. They lie about the reimbursements. They have not met the criteria that the ranking member has talked about the last 4 years, and they got the money anyway. They are playing us, Mr. Chairman, and we pay them; and they use that money to hurt us, to hurt Americans. This amendment says: we are cutting the money in half because of your prior conduct that shows you can't be trusted. That is all this amendment does. I would hope Members of Congress would send a message to Pakistan: we are not going to pay you to hate us and pay you to kill us; we are going to cut the money off. And that is just the way it is. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their comments and their work on this legislation. My amendment says, to quote the chairman earlier, ``We mean what we say.'' We say as a Congress that, if we are going to give American money to Pakistan to help us, they can't do certain things with that money. They can't support terrorism. They can't allow IEDs to be built that are used to kill Americans. These conditions are commonsense, good ideas. In the past, we have done this before. If we mean what we say, then we should require these conditions before we give Pakistan American money; but the law has allowed that Secretary of Defense to waive Congress' conditions and give them our money anyway. Pakistan has proven they didn't meet the conditions in 4 years of the last 5. They got the money anyway because the Secretary waived the rule of law or waived our conditions. This bill does something very simple. It says: Congress says there are certain rules to get American money; you follow the rules, or you don't get the money. Nobody can waive the condition and give you a pass and give you American money anyway. I would ask that this amendment be adopted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very simple. It makes it so the Secretary of Defense cannot waive the conditions that are in the bill on giving money to Pakistan. Since 2010, Congress has put conditions on our aid to Pakistan because Pakistan, frankly, can't be trusted. In 2011, Pakistan tipped off terrorists who had IED factories that the U.S. Government knew where they were. Pakistan tipped off the Haqqani network before the Pakistan military went to the tribal areas last year. We didn't tell Pakistan before we launched the raid that killed Osama bin Laden because, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, ``We just can't trust them.'' This bill puts seven conditions on our aid to Pakistan. They are good conditions. Earlier this evening, about an hour ago, the ranking member mentioned these conditions for aid to Pakistan. They are commonsense things like, if Pakistan wants our money, it shouldn't support terrorist activity against the United States--imagine that--or the Pakistan Government should dismantle the IED factories run by terrorists in Pakistan. These IED factories have killed many of our troops. Here is the problem. Each year, we put conditions on our aid. The bill also gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to give the money to Pakistan even if Pakistan doesn't meet those conditions, and this year is no exception. Once again, in this bill, we give the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the conditions Congress puts in the bill. Four of the last 5 years, Pakistan has failed to meet the conditions Congress has imposed on this type of legislation, and then the Secretary of Defense went ahead and gave the waiver, thus giving the money to Pakistan anyway. The administration has never not given Pakistan money because it failed to meet our conditions--conditions set by Congress--normal, commonsense conditions like: you don't get this money unless you meet these conditions. This amendment does one simple thing. It says: you meet the conditions, or you get no money from the United States; you don't give money to terrorists, or you get no money from the United States. It does not allow the Secretary of Defense to waive Congress' conditions and give the money anyway. That is what this legislation does. I would ask that the House support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since the early 1990's, Pastor Duong Kim Khai has been detained or arrested thirteen times. The first time he was arrested he was just 14 years old. Usually, he is arrested for simply organizing Christian prayer sessions. Most recently, he was arrested in August 2010 for his efforts to advocate for religious freedom and social justice. The trumped up charge? Attempting to overthrow the government. For this, he was sentenced to 2-8 years in prison and 3-5 years probation and house arrest. Unfortunately, his wife, who was denied permission to visit him in prison, died before she could see him again. In 2011, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that the Vietnam government's detention and conviction of Pastor Duong Kim Khai and six other activists were in violation of international law. But the State Department refuses to include Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom. The Pastor is not only a spiritual leader in his community but he also works to promote democracy and help victims of injustice. For example, he has served as an advocate for Vietnamese farmers whose land was confiscated by the government. Pastor Duong Kim Khai's trial was a sham and imprisonment is unacceptable. Freedom to worship is a human right and the Vietnamese government should immediately release him. Until they do, the State Department should call it like it is and recognize Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Madam Chair, I would like to try to interpret what has been said in a simpler way. Assume that the builders in the United States get together and they are given a new requirement: that when they build a new house, the Federal Government wants the option to have a master key to a back door--not only a back door but a secret back door so that at some time down the road, maybe the Federal Government would like to enter that secret back door for some purpose. And that is what this amendment is preventing. Just like we wouldn't let the Federal Government have a key to our back door or require builders to put a master key in all of the new homes that they build in the country and give the key to the government, we would never allow that. That would certainly be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. All this amendment does is it prevents technology--when technology is growing at a rapid rate--to prevent the Federal Government from requiring companies that make cell phones, for example, that there be an ability of the Federal Government to go in the cell phone and look around, even without the knowledge of the person who owns the cell phone. This is very similar to the bill that passed unanimously last night. So I urge the adoption to this amendment as well. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on the gentleman from Kentucky's amendment, since he ran out of time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at 91 years of age, E. Parker Mosley is a local legend. Lieutenant Mosley has served his country, traveled the world and even rubbed elbows with one of history's fiercest generals. Lt. Mosley is a loyal patriot and a man of integrity and action. The Houston community is blessed to have him. Lt. Mosley was born in 1924 in Macon, Georgia. From ages 12-18, he went to Gordon military school, where his father was a teacher. After graduation, in 1942, he was drafted into the Army. Being an eager and young man, he volunteered to be a paratrooper in WWII. Mosley attended Jump School at Fort Benning in Georgia. Paratroopers are military parachutists that are used as a surprise advantage to the military because they can be inserted quickly into the battlefield from the air. This allows the military to be positioned in areas that are not accessible by land. The first U.S. Airborne unit began a test in July 1940 and the first U.S. Army Combat Jump was near Oran, Algeria, in North Africa on November 8, 1942, which was right before Lt. Mosley started Jump School. This aspect of the military was quite new and unfamiliar, but that did not stop tenacious Lt. Mosley from volunteering to be a paratrooper. Lt. Mosley was then sent to Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Brisbane, Australia, to learn military and leadership skills. Even more impressive and something that many people do not know, Lt. Mosley was first in his class at OCS. This is a high honor and privilege that many do not receive. Lt. Mosley even had an opportunity to meet and befriend General MacArthur's wife at a Red Cross church service. Coincidentally, he ran into her two years later in Japan and she remembered him. After Brisbane, Lt. Mosley moved to the Philippines and then Japan where he was assigned master in the parachute school airbase at Yamato. At one point he even held the record number of consecutive jumps; he was always willing to jump. His favorite jumping memory was his last jump at the age of 22. It was over northern Japan and he was allowed to solo jump. There was no one giving him orders; he was all by himself. He said he will never forget the pilot circling as he jumped. And not only was Lt. Mosley good at his job, he encouraged other troops. He once convinced two soldiers to stay in parachute school who were going to quit. He asked them if they had told their girlfriends about parachute school yet, and if they had, now they'd have to write their girlfriends back and tell them they quit. The approach worked and they each thanked him the next day. Lt. Mosley was discharged from the army in 1947. He then went on to Oklahoma University in Norman, Oklahoma, to study geology where he met his future wife, Lorraine. Lt. Mosley described their first date like this: ``I had an airplane at the time, but no car. I called her and asked her if she wanted to go flying, and I don't think she believed me that I had a plane but no car. We went out for six nights straight then got engaged, just like that.'' Lorraine and Lt. Mosley were married for 63 years before she passed away a couple of years ago. After college at Oklahoma University, Mosley was hired by Exxon where he worked for 35 years. His work with Exxon eventually brought him to Texas, where he lives today. He remained in the Reserves after Active Duty and even reached the rank of captain. Mosley is admired and respected by his peers for his patriotism and wit. One of his friends, Mr. Warnack, said that Mosley has ``one of the quickest minds I've ever ran across.'' Recently, Creekwood Middle School in Kingwood--which has a tradition of honoring our military--honored Lt. Mosley by dedicating a brick to him in their Veterans Honor Garden. The Honor Garden contains more than 200 bricks which all honor local veterans and serve as a place of remembrance for past and present loved ones. It is my hope that all the students learn Lt. Mosley's story. He is one of Texas' finest. Lt. Mosley represents the best of the Greatest Generation. He's truly a remarkable patriot--always ready and willing to jump out of a plane for his country. Thank you, Lt. Parker Mosley, for your devotion and service to our American nation. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman, and I also thank the ranking member. What the amendment does--and I will work with the committee on this-- is exactly what the ranking member said. In one word, it finds out ``justice.'' We free the innocent and we convict the guilty, but we can't do it unless these rape kits are analyzed. So I hope the committee figures out a way to have the Justice Department do what they are supposed to do that Congress has already told them to do. Good luck with that. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank Congresswoman Black for this amendment and for bringing it to the attention of the House tonight. Madam Chair, this issue came to my attention a couple of years ago when I was with constituents in my district. They were gun dealers, and they were complaining and telling me how the administration quietly began requiring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--we call it the ATF--to record a firearms purchaser's race and ethnicity. This, Madam Chair, is not law. It is not congressional action. We did not do this. The ATF, through administration rules, requires the race of the gun purchaser, and the seller who is selling the gun has got to check the box and write the race of the gun purchaser. If they do not do that or they do it wrong, the ATF can come back later, look at the records, say ``You left it blank on the race of the individual,'' and shut the business down. Now, there are several problems with this new rule by the ATF. In order to avoid breaking this Federal regulation, the dealers then have to ask the customers their race, and when people are offended--and they get offended--they take it out on the dealers themselves. Sometimes refuse to give their race, and then what is the gun seller to do? Why is our government racial profiling people who exercise the Second Amendment? Why are they doing that? Second, it is none of the government's business the race of a gunowner. The Second Amendment does not just apply to certain races. It applies to everybody. It doesn't exclude races and only include certain races. As the gentlewoman from Tennessee has said, the Federal Government ought to be colorblind across the board on every issue, especially when it comes to rights. The Second Amendment applies to everybody regardless of their race, just like the First Amendment applies to everybody regardless of their race. So this amendment would simply tell the Federal Government, it is none of your business the race of a gun purchaser in the United States. Stay out of that issue. Just as equally important, you can't shut some business down if they don't put the right race or they leave the race block blank. That is none of the Federal Government's business. I would hope that Members of Congress would support this amendment and keep the Federal Government from requiring racial profiling in the purchase of guns under the Second Amendment.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, Congress in the last several sessions has done, I think, an admirable job of dealing with this crime of sexual assault in the United States. Several pieces of legislation have passed the House, under several administrations, going all the way back to the Violence Against Women Act. More recently, under the Debbie Smith Act, SAFER legislation, here is what is taking place. We now know because of DNA that old rape kits can be analyzed to determine who the suspect was that committed that sexual assault, generally against females, and that is a good development. Because of that legislation, the Debbie Smith Act was passed; and the SAFER Act says that Debbie Smith, which grants funds to do rape kit backlogs, that 75 percent of that money, of those grants, will go to actually analyze backlog rape kits. Get those backlogs analyzed, go after the bad guys, find out who committed these crimes, and bring those 400,000 rape kits up to date by getting them analyzed. This all sounds good. The problem is the Justice Department doesn't follow the law. They are not analyzing these cases. There is still a backlog. They are spending the money, but they are spending it on other things like research rather than what the law says: analyze those cases. Madam Chair, 75 percent of that money is to go to analyze that backlog of rape cases. My amendment just tells the Justice Department to follow previous law, analyze those cases, use 75 percent of the money that is available to analyze those cases. That is what the amendment does. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. POE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POE of Texas. In conclusion, I want to thank the minority, Ms. Lofgren, and all the cosponsors on this, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, for their support. On the issue of privacy, in this time where we have threats to this country, we can have security and we can certainly have privacy, and we can have the Constitution be followed as well. The Fourth Amendment has always required that if the government wants to search, the government must follow certain rules. And those rules are that you must get a warrant from a judge based on probable cause. That is still the law of the land, even in 2015. All this amendment does is ensure the fact that the government--the FBI--follows the Constitution. The idea that the Federal Government wants to have encryption in American cell phones so they can have access to the information is repulsive. So all this does is keep the Federal Government out of our business without appropriate constitutional protections. I ask for support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the rains came down and the floods came up. And although Texas did not receive Noah's 40 days and 40 nights of rain, the recent 10 days of rain were of Biblical proportions. The whole State received the incessant rain. And about the time we thought it was all over on Saturday morning, it all happened again Saturday night, flooding many of the same homes and communities throughout the State. In Houston, six, so far, have died. Statewide, there are now 24 deaths. Eleven are still missing in Hays County when the Blanco River rose so fast at night it trapped people in over 200 resort homes that were on the river--homes that eventually washed away. Many of Texas' rivers--the Trinity, the Colorado, the Brazos, and the San Jacinto-- rose at rapid record rates and are still out of their banks. Weather experts, Mr. Speaker, said so much rain fell in Texas in May that it was enough moisture to cover the entire State in 8 inches of water. That is a lot of rain. Seventy counties have been designated disaster areas. But the rainbow news, Mr. Speaker, is that many, many voluntarily helped their neighbors and strangers survive the troubled waters of the floods. Here is just one example. The hard rain in Dallas flooded the Trinity River. Dallas is in north Texas. The Trinity River flows south down to southeast Texas near Houston, and the added rain in southeast Texas had the Trinity River the size of the Mississippi River. As the river rose in southeast Texas, a herd of cattle were trapped in the middle of the river on high ground. This high ground was eventually going to be overcome with water and the cattle would be washed out to sea. The river at this point is between the two small towns of Liberty and Dayton, about 6 miles apart, separated by U.S. highway 90. So Sunday, in a scene reminiscent of the 1800s roundups, cowboys mounted airboats--yes, airboats, Mr. Speaker--to force the hundreds of cattle into the river and have them swim to safer ground. The only area that had high ground was U.S. highway 90. The highway was above the water, even though water was on both sides of the highway. The roundup took several hours because, Mr. Speaker, cattle are hardheaded. They did not want to leave the high ground and swim to a highway. So it took several hours to do this. Even the cowboys were lassoing calves and tying them to the airboat so they wouldn't drown. Finally, after many hours, all the cattle were forced up on U.S. highway 90 between Liberty and Dayton, Texas. Now, what do you do with them? Well, the cowboys, now on horses, along with citizens and other volunteers, herded the cattle down U.S. highway 90 to Dayton, Texas, through Main Street of Dayton, Texas. The citizens came out with their kids to see the cattle drive through Dayton, Texas, and they moved these several hundred of cattle to a rail yard where they will be kept, that is the highest area in the county, until the flood waters finally are diminished. Of course, local businesses helped out: a local store, Casa Don Boni in Liberty; and, of course, the Sonic, always present in Dayton, supported the volunteers with food and drinks; and other businesses as well helped. This is an example of how, during a troubled time, tough times, Texans are helping each other survive this catastrophic flooding. So, now, Mr. Speaker, that the rains that came down and the flood that came up have subsided and the earth has returned to its dry land, our prayers go out to the ones who lost family, friends, and property. God bless every one of them. And we also give grateful thanks to those that helped each other during the floods of May. And that is just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman, as well, for their comments. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not the American Community Survey. The issue is where we are going to get this money to bring this fund up to last year's level. It is going to come from that portion of the Census that is about $800 million, and that is why that section was picked. We need to have this lively debate about the American Community Survey in some other setting. Right now, let's take care of trafficking victims in the United States and provide them grants, and let's provide law enforcement grants and victim services grants so that they can help minor sex trafficking victims who are being trafficked throughout the United States. I appreciate the ranking member's support and the chairman's support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.