Ted Poe

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, history, heritage and symbols of the United States are constantly under criticism in this country. Even yesterday when we read the Constitution of the United States on the House floor, the first time it has ever been done in 200 years, there were some who complained that it is irrelevant. It is kind of like folks in church that cover their ears when certain sections of the Bible are read. They don't want to hear it because it may apply to them. People go to court nowadays to try to remove our national motto, In God We Trust. It is above the flag, Mr. Speaker, although television very seldom shows our national motto. Then there are those who are offended by the American flag, Old Glory. It is not even displayed in parts of the United States because it offends some people. Some people that are included in the group are foreigners who are offended by the American flag. Now we get to today, a report by the Houston Chronicle about Marine Michael Merola, a 60-year-old vet from the United States Marine Corps, and he flies, here he is, he still looks like a Marine, this is a photograph from the Chronicle that shows Old Glory and, of course, the Marine flag, flying in his backyard on a 20-foot flagpole. No one has complained. His neighbors like it. Kids walk by and actually compliment him on flying Old Glory and the Marine flag. But the neighborhood association has complained and sued. Now, who is this guy? Well, he served in the United States Marines from 1969 to 1977. He trained with the United States Navy SEALs. After he left the Marine Corps, he was responsible as sergeant of the guard for raising the flag at NSA right down the road. He is from New York, but he got to Texas as fast as he could, and he has no intention of taking down this flag or flagpole. He is a passionate American. He is a marine. But the association doesn't like it, and here is what they have said in their lawsuit: the flagpole is a detriment to the association. It causes imminent harm and irreparable injury to the association. The problem with the flagpole of that height and that significance is it flaps in the wind and causes noise to other homeowners. That is their problem. So they sued him. Now, first of all, we have an issue of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has said it is a right to fly the flag. Speech includes the flying of the American flag. It is the symbol of everything that is good and right about America. That is why it is behind you, Mr. Speaker, when we go into session every day. Marines and sailors and soldiers and members of the Coast Guard have fought under that flag all over the world and have died for that flag so the association can exist down there in northwest Houston. Right now we are engaged in two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and members of our military are fighting under that flag. But it is flying in the breeze and offends the association because the flapping causes irreparable injury. Well, flapping in the breeze has brought safety to the United States. The flag flying throughout the world and the noise, if we can use that word, the sound of freedom, is the sound of that flag flying in the United States and throughout the world. It is freedom of speech, and it trumps the elitist concept that the flag and the flagpole are offensive to the association. You know, Mr. Merola is a marine. Once a marine, always a marine. And we are proud of our marines in the United States. They are a unique bunch. That was best said by an Army general about the Marines, ``There are only two groups that understand the marines--the marines, and the enemy.'' And that is correct. So good for you, Mike Merola. Keep your flagpole up. Fly Old Glory. Fly the marine flag. We are proud of you. Keep fighting for the flag, because freedom of flying the flag trumps the concept that it is offensive to some people. God bless our marines, God bless you, Mike Merola, and semper fi. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in just a few days, on January 9, Iraqi authorities will deport the Abbasi family to Iran where they face certain persecution. The Abbasis are political refugees. Their father got in trouble in Iran because he dared to write that Iranians actually deserve freedom. He wrote that every man should be able to have a say in who governs them. This simple idea is the very foundation on which our great Nation was built and the fundamental, universal human right of all mankind. But the tiny tyrant of Iran did not like that. He saw Mr. Abbasi as a threat to his power. The regime, having tasted power, is doing whatever it can to keep it. That includes imprisoning, torturing, and murdering anyone who so dares speak against it. But these are desperate actions from a desperate regime. When a regime loses respect for its own people, its days are numbered. As he has done with thousands of other Iranian freedom fighters, Ahmadinejad came after Mr. Abbasi. So Mr. Abassi fled to Sweden. But when he did, Iranian authorities started going after his family still in Iran. So they fled too, but could only get to Iraq before being imprisoned by Iraqi authorities for not having their immigration papers. Now the Iraqi government wants to deport his daughter, Iman Abbasi, back to Iran, which is all but a death sentence for her. I talked to the State Department about Iman today and they are working on making sure that Iman is allowed to remain in Iraq until they can sort out her refugee status. We have seen enough of Iraqi authorities doing favors for its neighbor to the East. At Camp Ashraf, a camp in the middle of the Iraqi desert full of freedom fighters from Iran, Iraqis and their Iranian buddies psychologically torture the residents. They put up dozens of loudspeakers surrounding the camp and shout at residents around the clock, telling them to go home to their motherland and stop being traitors. We must send a clear message to Iraq: as long as it is ruled by the tiny tyrant and his henchmen, Iran is not a friend you can trust. If you side with them, then you side with oppression and tyranny. So stop imprisoning political refugees and stand up for the freedom that so many of our countrymen and yours have given their lives for.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, more Border Patrol agents are being sent to the southern border. The border is violent, desolate, and dangerous. Drugs and people are going north. Money and weapons are going south. And the border is a war zone. Madam Speaker, I'm not talking about the southern border of the United States with Mexico. No. I'm talking about the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. That's correct. Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano has said, ``We are going to contribute Border Patrol agents to protect the border of Afghanistan.'' Now, why is Homeland Security making this uninformed decision? Our southern border is a war zone and our Border Patrol agents are needed there. In fact, they need more help. We should send more National Guard troops there to help them stop the invasion of the violent drug cartels. Homeland Security should protect our homeland, not somebody else's. This ill-advised move by the Department of Homeland Security shows how blissfully ignorant Washington is about reality and the battle on the third front, the southern border of the United States. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this new Congress must be committed to listening to the will of the people and following the Constitution. Immediately we must right a wrong that has been forcibly placed like chains on the American people. The unhealthy national health care bill bruises the doctrine of the Constitution. The people don't want the government stealing their individual liberty to make health decisions. Congress must repeal this totalitarian act. In a few moments, Congress this day, on this new day, will read the Constitution on the House floor, the sacred rule of law for this Nation. Nowhere in this document of wisdom does the Federal Government have the omnipotent authority to force any American to buy any product or face criminal penalties, whether it is a car, health insurance, or a box of donuts. The nationalized health care bill is an unconstitutional oppression of the American citizen. We will repeal this injustice. On this new day, we stewards of the Constitution must right this wrong, this illegal law that has been coerced upon the people without their consent. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, more border agents are being sent to the border. The border, as we all know, is violent, dangerous, and it is not safe. Drugs and guns and people and money cross back and forth across the border because two nations do not have operational control of that border. The border is desolate. It is hard. It is a war zone-- but Madam Speaker, I am not talking about the border of the United States with Mexico. I am talking about the southern border, or the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. That's right. Border Patrol agents from the United States are going to Afghanistan to protect the Afghan border from the Taliban coming in from Pakistan. It is a war zone over there, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said we are going to contribute Border Patrol agents to protect the border of Afghanistan. There are already 25 there, and more are on the way. Now, Madam Speaker, why are Border Patrol agents from the United States going to Afghanistan? The marines and our soldiers and our troops over there can do the job. More importantly, we need the Border Patrol agents over here. ``Homeland security'' means that the Secretary of Homeland Security protects the American homeland, not the homeland of some other nation. We need the help. In fact, we need the military on our southern border. Our border is a war zone. Drugs and people and money crisscross our border with Mexico. It is a violent place. It is the third front. More recently, we have had several people murdered on the battlefront on our border. Let me relate three of those. One of those was a 27-year-old female police chief in Mexico--right on the border with the United States. Chief Hermila Garcia was on the job for 51 days, and she was shot down, shot seven times by the drug cartels. A recent homicide on the border. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot in the back while he was protecting our border. Ironically, he had been to Iraq and Afghanistan as a soldier, as a marine, and now he was back here, killed on our border. Then David Hartley, a citizen, was murdered on Falcon Lake, in Texas, when he was with his wife, Tiffany, as they were viewing an old mission. Shot and killed by the drug cartels. Our homeland is not protected adequately, and it is time that we put Border Patrol agents on our border but also that we put the National Guard on our southern border. It is the third front. Homeland Security should protect it. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Section 4: ``The times, places and manner of the holding of elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations except as to the place of choosing Senators.''

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who are both sitting here together to show their support for this bipartisan legislation. I believe that important, good legislation passes this House when it is bipartisan, and nothing could be more important than trying to protect the greatest resource we have in our community, which is those young children who live among us. This legislation is important for a whole lot of reasons. It is ironic, Madam Speaker, that in international sex trafficking, if we have that situation in the United States where, say, a young girl is trafficked into the United States from Honduras, and she is rescued by law enforcement, she is treated like a victim of crime because she is an international individual. If the same situation occurs where an American citizen, a young girl, is trafficked from Sacramento to Houston and she is rescued in Houston, she is not treated as a victim of crime; she is generally treated as a criminal. That especially is true in places like Texas, where domestic trafficking victims are treated as criminals. Not to blame law enforcement, but they don't know what to do with these young girls. There is no place to put them. There is no place to take them. So they file charges on them for prostitution, minors committing prostitution, so they can protect them by locking them up. That is why many times they file charges. However, though, they are not criminals. They are victims of criminal conduct. Once she has that label of prostitute, even though she is a minor, we all know because of public records nowadays that that sticks with that young girl forever no matter how it turns out in that criminal case. So we have to change the mindset in this country to make sure that we understand when a victim--a young girl--is put in that situation because of her environment or whatever and is forced into modern day slavery, that we treat her as a victim of crime, and when she is rescued by law enforcement, that she is rescued and not put into the criminal justice system. This bill moves us in that direction, and it is important that we continue to understand that. This is a hard situation. For the young girls who find themselves in that position--who go into prostitution because of being forced to do so--once they are rescued, they are difficult to deal with. They have a hard time coming back into a normal society because they are beat down emotionally and they are beat down physically. So it is difficult to deal with them, and it is not easy to bring them back. But just because it is hard, it is no reason we shouldn't be involved in helping the youth of our community and in making sure that we rescue them one at a time. It is no reason we shouldn't take whatever funds are necessary to make sure that we treat them with the dignity that they deserve. Then, on the other end, when we capture that trafficker, that individual who makes money--that filthy lucre--from transporting a child from one part of the United States to another, we treat him as he deserves, and he gets justice at the courthouse. Then the customers who buy those children for sexual favors, we treat those people with justice. They get justice whether they want it or not, and we hold them accountable for the ways they have treated the youth of this Nation. So we have a long way to go; but this is a start, recognizing that those young girls, mainly young girls, are victims of crime. I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation. I, too, want to compliment those in the Houston area and the Rescue Alliance, the Children At Risk, a nongovernment agency that's doing everything they can to rescue those children; Sheriff Adrian Garcia, Constable Ron Hickman, all working together to stop this epidemic that is consistently growing in this country. And I can agree that there's no more important legislation that we could pass than legislation this time of year to take care of our greatest natural resource: young children. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been instrumental in this legislation.

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Today the House considers this important bill, S. 2925, the Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010. The bill was introduced by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and was recently amended and passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. We had a similar bill introduced in the House this year by my friends Mr. Smith from New Jersey and Mrs. Maloney from New York. I would like to thank them both for their leadership on this important issue. Domestic minor sex trafficking is modern-day slavery and a scourge on our society. According to Shared Hope International, at least 100,000 minor children are used in prostitution every year in just the United States. Some sources estimate the number of minors may be as high as 300,000, though the actual number is difficult to really track. Girls as young as 11 years of age are sold on Internet Web sites, exploited by men for their youth and by gangs for their quote, ``reusable qualities.'' These traffickers and the customers who buy them are the filth of humanity. In my other life, I was a judge in Texas, and a former Texas Ranger told me, ``Judge, when you find one of these traffickers in court, just get a rope.'' Not that we'd do that, but this is how bad this crime is affecting our communities. In my hometown of Houston, Texas, we have a Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance. It's one of 42 in the Nation. Texas is a tier 1 trafficking State, and Houston, unfortunately, is a hub for human trafficking. This means that the Rescue Alliance is on the front lines of the war against trafficking. They are doing all they can to combat trafficking in Texas and other States. But I hear from them over and over again they just need more resources to care for the victims of domestic minor sex trafficking. Too often in our system, crime victims, those women, those young girls who are sold into slavery, are treated like criminals. They are not criminals. They are victims of crime. And it's time we, as a community, treat them as victims, not criminals. Senator Wyden's bill, S. 2925, addresses the problem by authorizing the Department of Justice, in working with the Department of Health and Human Services, to award grants to organizations in six regionally diverse locations that provide services for child sex trafficking victims. Such services may include temporary and long-term placement of victims, as well as 24-hour emergency services. The funding may also be used to provide mental health counseling. Most importantly, funding may be used for specialized training for law enforcement officials and social service providers to properly identify and care for minor trafficking victims. When this legislation passed the Senate, important amendments were added to strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to further prevent the sexual exploitation of children. Unfortunately, a number of these amendments were stripped before the bill was brought to the House floor. I disagree with that approach. We need tougher laws, not weaker laws, to apprehend, convict, and incarcerate traffickers and those who buy young girls for sex. This bill is a good first start toward building our capacity to care for the victims of domestic minor sex trafficking. Not one more American child, not one more kid should be allowed to wander our streets with their innocence for sale. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, when a young girl is kidnapped in a foreign country and brought into the United States and used as a sex slave and law enforcement gets involved, she is treated as a victim of crime. If a young girl who is an American citizen is forced into sex slavery as an 11- or 12-year-old and she is trafficked across the United States and law enforcement gets involved, unfortunately that girl is not treated as a victim, but a criminal, and criminal charges are filed on her for prostitution and she goes through the system. Many times, law enforcement does that just to protect that young child. We need to change that, and today this House of Representatives passed legislation, the Domestic Trafficking Victims Act, which will treat those victims as victims and give resources to put them in places throughout the United States where we can protect them, rescue them, prosecute the trafficker, and prosecute the customer who buys that sex from that poor girl for money. We need to treat these victims with the dignity that they deserve. This legislation is important. I am glad it passed the House. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Brazil is at it again. We thought they learned their lesson in the case of Sean Goldman, but they have not--as of 2009, there were still over 50 kidnapped children in Brazil, including Nicole Pate, the daughter of my constituent, Marty Pate. I have come to this floor before to talk about the case of my constituent, Marty Pate. Marty lives in Crosby, Texas, and has not seen his daughter, Nicole, in 4 years. Her mother, Monica, is a native of Brazil. In 2006, she took Nicole on a trip to Brazil and never came back. Legal documents from Texas give Marty joint custody, and the Hague Convention requires Brazil to work out visitation for Marty. Marty is not asking for his daughter to be returned--though it is well within his rights to ask for this. He is just asking to see his daughter and have her visit family in the United States. Marty has gone above and beyond in trying to work with the government of Brazil. He has even offered to drop the charges pending against his ex-wife if it would make a visit with Nicole easier. He has spent over $10,000 of his own money flying to and from Brazil countless times to see Nicole. But Brazilian officials have continued to stonewall and ignore their obligations under the Hague Convention. They have allowed Nicole's mother to make a mockery of the Hague process, to file meaningless allegations and attempt to delay the process. So far, it's working. The Government of Brazil has let this case linger for over a year without resolution. A child's welfare hangs in the balance. Nicole Pate is caught between two worlds--living with her mother in Brazil and not allowed to see her father or her siblings back in the United States. But officials in Brazil don't seem to care. They are taking their sweet time in dealing with this case. In August, it was decided that the case would go before a Federal judge. It is now December and we still don't have a court date. Madam Speaker, there is a reason that the State Department has labeled Brazil a non-compliant country when it comes to honoring the Hague Convention. It seems that Brazil would rather sign onto treaties and gain all the benefits that come with that--but they don't care about holding up their end of the bargain. The State Department needs to take aggressive action to pressure Brazil into acting with haste when determining the fates of American children. There is no excuse for Brazil to drag their feet while little Nicole Pate sits and wonders why she can't see her daddy. Even worse is that the behavior of Brazil and other non-compliant Hague countries seems to have no impact on our foreign policy in relation to these countries. We still trade with them, we still send them millions in foreign aid each year, and these countries still violate their treaty obligations. Or in the case of Brazil, become a haven for kidnapped American children. That is why in the 112th Congress I intend to introduce a bill that will require Congress to vote on foreign aid by country--instead of in one, giant package. The American people should be able to see where we send foreign aid money, and for what purpose. And furthermore, it will allow Congress to hold countries accountable to receiving that money. It's time for the Government of Brazil to begin honoring their obligations under the Hague Convention. It's time for the State Department to be more aggressive in fighting for kidnapped American children around the world. And it's time for Marty Pate to be reunited with his kidnapped daughter, Nicole. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Interior Department said there will be a new ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That will cost us thousands of good-paying jobs in the gulf region, especially around Texas and Louisiana. The administration promised us that domestic oil production was an important part of our energy future; but for the last 6 months, the Federal Government has blocked drilling at every turn, leaking a permit out here and there only just lately. But now they say it's safe to drill again, and what do they do? They ban drilling. The Cubans are going to drill offshore next year, and from what they're saying, they will partner with the Russians and the Chinese. Madam Speaker, since when is it okay for China, Russia, and Cuba to drill off our shores and not America? Not only that, the American taxpayer is sending money by the administration to Brazil and Mexico to let those countries drill off their shores. Is the administration at war with the American energy companies? Maybe so. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it was about midnight when gunfire erupted in a remote area of Rio Rico, Arizona, a city near the border of Mexico and the United States. Border Patrol agents and unknown gunmen exchanged shots in the dark, and one shot proved to be deadly, claiming a life in this war zone--our southern border, the third front. Radio chatter alerted dispatch of the incident, and a call for assistance was received this Tuesday night about 11 p.m. Border Patrol agents were making rounds in a very isolated and rugged area just north of the border town of Nogales. They were trying to catch bandits, the kind that target illegal immigrants. They rob and steal and pillage those immigrants, and our Border Patrol agents protect those immigrants. Banditos have long traveled border districts, robbing these individuals. But while on patrol Tuesday night, United States Border Agent Brian Terry, and this is his photograph, Madam Speaker. Brian Terry and team members encountered a group of armed gunmen. Upon seeing Agent Terry and three other Border Patrol agents, they opened fire on Agent Terry and his comrades with automatic weapons. Border Patrol Agent Terry was shot in the back with an AK-47. He died en route to a hospital. Four suspects have been arrested for this dastardly crime. One individual is still at large and on the run. Justice is deserved and needed for these murderers. Border Patrol Agent Terry is irreplaceable--yet another American life claimed by the violent border battle on the third front. Agent Terry was 40. He was a brother and a son. His family called him a tough, big guy who committed his life to public service. Terry was headed home today to Michigan to see his family for Christmas. He had purchased his plane ticket earlier this week. He was an agent for 3 years, but he had a military background. Right out of high school, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and he served 3 years. Part of that time he was in the combat zone in Iraq. He later became a police officer and he joined the Border Patrol in 2007. His life was dedicated to public service and the protection of the American people. He had been a member of the elite Border Patrol Tactical Team; and according to his family, he loved that job. He would call home before going on a mission, and he would call when he got back in. The excitement of protecting this Nation fueled his passion in the workplace, and he put his life on the line to protect our security and sovereignty as a Nation. And he paid for it by giving his life. Madam Speaker, going back to the year 2004, I have a chart that shows assaults that have occurred on our Border Patrol agents. In 2004, about 400 assaults occurred. All of the way to 2009 and even this year, there are over a thousand assaults committed against our Border Patrol agents by illegals arrogantly coming into the United States. Mainly those assaults are by rocks being thrown at those Border Patrol agents and causing injuries. You don't hear too much about the assaults against our border protectors. But the media sure tells us a lot about how important it is that we let people who are here in this country illegally stick around and make the rest of us pay for it. Agent Terry's fatal shooting is not the first murder of a Border Patrol agent. Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas of Campo, California, was assassinated in 2009 while responding to criminal activity in a notorious alien and drug smuggling area. The men and women on the border are under constant assault. They are the iron gatekeepers to a violent battle that reveals each day and every night uncontained authority. Because you see, Madam Speaker, whether we want to admit it or not, there are portions of the Texas-Mexico border, the U.S.-Mexico border, that are under the operational control of the drug cartels. The United States does not have control; Mexico does not have control. Not in all areas, but some areas; and that is where this ruthless third front is taking place. The border war is a bloody battlefield between the law and the outlaws. Once a Texas Ranger told me: Congressman Poe, after dark it gets western on the border. He said we are out-manned, out-gunned, and out-financed by the enemy. Madam Speaker, we need the moral resolve as a Nation to secure the dignity of our borders and to protect the people who are protecting us, our Border Patrol agents. They are doing the job that we asked them to do, so it is long overdue that we protect the border of this country like we protect the borders of other nations so that no more Border Patrol agents will be murdered by those who sneak into our country. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 4005, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010, makes a simple, yet very important, technical change to Federal law to facilitate asset preservation for foreign countries. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I commend my colleague from California (Ms. Chu) in sponsoring this House companion to S. 4005. I would like to thank her for her work on this issue in bringing it before Congress. Federal law currently provides procedures by which the Federal Government can seek a court order to preserve or freeze certain domestic assets on behalf of a foreign government. This is an important tool to take out of the hands of criminals the proceeds that fund their illegal operations. Criminals will go to great lengths to stash their ill-gotten profits. And whether it is an international drug cartel, a terrorist group, organized crime syndicate, or simply a savvy computer hacker or corrupt corporation, the key to putting a stop to their crimes is to put a stranglehold on their money that they have illegally obtained. But a recent D.C. circuit court of appeals decision limits the ability of the United States to assist foreign governments in retaining and restraining those assets. The court interpreted section 2464 of title 28, governing the entry of foreign judgments, to authorize a U.S. court to freeze assets only after the foreign court's final forfeiture judgment. This is a significant limitation on our ability to assist in foreign forfeiture proceedings. If forced to await until a final foreign judgment is entered, we run the risk of allowing thousands, if not millions, of dollars to slip through our hands into the hands of the criminals. In many countries, like Mexico, their judiciaries operate at a much slower pace than ours, and their prosecution rates are much lower. In fact, the criminal conviction rate in Mexico is less than 10 percent. Therefore, a lot of times, by the time a forfeiture judgment is made, the target has already moved their assets someplace else. This hampers our ability to go after Mexican cartel members who have assets here in the United States. So unless Congress clarifies the scope of section 2467, we run the risk of losing cooperation from foreign governments in our request to seize assets that are held abroad. The investigation into the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme undertaken by Allen Stanford demonstrates our need for foreign countries to continue to freeze assets on our behalf. To date, Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom have restrained a combined $400 million on behalf of the United States in just the Stanford case. This is money that certainly could have been lost if the United States was prevented from requesting such assistance from our allies until a final judgment was made. The court of appeals was correct that it is not a court's role to substitute its view or policy for the legislation which has been passed by Congress. So I don't argue with the court's decision; but it is Congress' obligation to change and fix the law so that this does not occur in the future. With adoption of this legislation, Congress is establishing a clear and simple policy on the restraint of foreign assets. So I commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn, and of course the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), for their efforts to clarify this statute. We must ensure that foreign governments can continue to rely on our assistance with their criminal prosecutions and the United States will continue to receive the same cooperation from our foreign allies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the forfeiture concept is very important to the helping of our law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. It is the concept that criminals, drug cartels make a lot of money off the crimes they commit; and that money, when confiscated, should be not given back to the perpetrator, of course. It should be used for law enforcement and other worthwhile endeavors. Under current law, this problem is an extreme problem because of the fact that many times, by the time the criminal cartel has been captured and they go to trial, they have hidden their assets and then there is no money to go back into the forfeiture. So this legislation prevents this problem from occurring in the future. It allows the seizure of those assets where they can be used for law enforcement. It makes criminals pay the rent on the courthouse and pay for the system that they have created, and it helps in the forfeiture. I cannot overemphasize how important forfeiture of illegal, ill- gotten gain is to our law enforcement agencies. Just one example of this: down on the Texas border where our sheriffs are operating on the border, we have got one county. The sheriff in Hudspeth County doesn't even have a budget for the motor pool; in other words, he has no vehicles that are funded at taxpayer expense. So the only way he gets vehicles is capturing drug cartels and drug runners when they come into Hudspeth County and forfeiting their vehicles to law enforcement. That is why they have a nice set of Escalades that they use in the fight on the drug cartel. So forfeiture, whether it is vehicles or whether it is money, is extremely important to law enforcement; and we must continue to help them where we can and make the criminals pay for the system they have created and pay the rent on the courthouse. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, patent law is complicated. It is difficult. It is messy. Now, that's why law schools have a special track for those that want to be patent lawyers. They get their own certification, in many law schools, because it is so complicated. And then when those cases go to court, they need to be presented to a judge that has a lot of experience in patent law. It is a difficult, complex legal issue in almost every case. And those cases take, sometimes, years before they are resolved in court, then on appeal, and the reversal rate is extremely high. This legislation, hopefully, corrects that problem in giving those district judges that want to hear these cases that special expertise in hearing a great number of these cases, becoming experts and understanding the law, the complexities of the law and, hopefully, getting a better and quicker result in the courtrooms of the United States. I support this legislation. I want to commend, once again, the two representatives from California, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Issa, for their long endurance over sponsoring this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too time-consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 628 addresses these concerns by authorizing a pilot program in certain United States district courts to promote patent expertise among participating judges. The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that fewer than 1 percent of all the cases in United States district courts, on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically has a patent case proceed through trial once every 7 years. Nevertheless, these cases account for 10 percent of complex cases, and they require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial resources. Notwithstanding the investment of additional time and resources, the rate of reversal on claim construction issues--the correct interpretation of which is central to the proper resolution of these cases--is unacceptably high. The premise underlying H.R. 628 is, succinctly stated, practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges who focus more attention on patent cases will be expected to be better prepared to make decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny. The bill that we have before us today is the product of extensive oversight hearing that focused on proposals to improve patent litigation, which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property in October of 2005. This litigation is similar to H.R. 34 from the 110th Congress and H.R. 5418, a bill that passed the House unanimously during the 109th Congress. More recently, the House passed H.R. 628 on March 17, 2009. The other body passed the legislation with amendments on December 13. The new changes improve the measure by eliminating a $10 million authorization and by expanding the bill's application to smaller judicial districts. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 628 requires the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select at least six district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that begins no later than 6 months after the date of enactment. The bill specifies criteria the director must employ in determining eligible district courts. It also contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and to prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum-shopping litigants and lawyers. The litigation additionally requires the director in consultation with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of each participating district to provide the committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress reports. These reports will enable the Congress and the courts to evaluate whether the pilot program is working and, if so, whether it should be made permanent. Mr. Speaker, the bill does not substantially amend the patent laws or the judicial process, nor does it serve as a substitute for comprehensive patent reform that is needed. Rather, H.R. 628 constructs a foundation that future Congresses and the courts may use to assess the merits of future related proposals. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the superb job that the bill's sponsors, Representatives Issa and Schiff, did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous experts as they developed this bipartisan important legislation. Their success and cooperation have resulted in a good bill that deserves the support of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is a sponsor of this bill.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the third front--the war zone that is our southern border with Mexico. Violent behavior is reaching new lows in the Mexican border town of Juarez. Armed attackers busted into a kindergarten school and set it on fire. Why? Well, the criminal drug cartels found out the teachers in Juarez got a Christmas bonus, so they set up a new extortion racket. These outlaw banditos demanded a protection fee from the teachers to keep their students safe. When the teachers didn't pay up, armed attackers broke into the school and set it on fire. Juarez is the most violent city in all of Mexico, and the violent cartels are bringing the war to the United States. Just last night, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by bandits in the border town of Rio Rico, Arizona. Our wide open borders are facilitating violence on both sides of the border war zone. Meanwhile, the administration just whistles past the graveyard. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I strongly support a negotiated solution for peace in the Middle East, and this resolution will help do that. Unfortunately, behind closed doors and behind the backs of Israelis and the United States, Palestinian leaders are reportedly holding high- level, unilateral discussions in pursuing recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums. In fact, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, on October 26 of this year said he supported recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations. The answer is to negotiate with Israel to make sure that there is a Palestinian state and not operate unilaterally without the help and negotiation of Israel. But this is not all. Earlier this month, three South American countries--Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay--recognized Palestine as a state. Palestinian statehood recognition outside of talks with Israel is a bad idea, and it is not a peaceful solution to this problem. If the Palestinian state is a sovereign state, what are the borders of this state going to be? Will terrorist acts now be seen as an act of war from a recognized state? Is this going to be a sovereign state within the sovereign State of Israel? No one knows because none of these questions have been answered with these countries who want to have a unilateral recognition of this state. I am not saying that there can never be a Palestinian state, but what I am saying is certain conditions certainly should be met before a state can be established. And one of those, the foremost important one, is get to the table and negotiate with Israel. Quit worrying about what Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay think and be more concerned about what Israel thinks, because Israel must agree to whatever solution comes about in this negotiation. If other countries follow Brazil and recognize Palestine, why would Palestine return to negotiations with Israel? They are already getting what they want without negotiations. I believe that without further negotiations with Israel, there will be violence in the Middle East; in fact, peace in the Middle East will be a far-off dream. I think the administration needs to come out very strongly in opposition to this idea before more states recognize a Palestinian state. I think it is important that Congress show Israel that we stand with them. We stand for them because what is bad for them is bad for the United States and for the world and for the Middle East. So it is simple: Get back to the table with the people that are most concerned about a Palestinian state, that being the Israelis. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Middle East Subcommittee, be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation. Shigeru Yamada was born in Japan in 1992. When Shigeru was 10 years old, his mother brought him to the United States as a dependent on her student visa. In 1995 when Shigeru was 13 years old, his mother was killed in a car accident. At the time of her death, Shigeru's mother was engaged to be married to an American citizen. If his mother had survived and in fact married the U.S. citizen, Shigeru would have obtained legal permanent resident status through her. Shigeru's natural father was an alcoholic and physically abusive to Shigeru's mother and the siblings. After the mother's death, Shigeru and the siblings were raised by an aunt in Chula Vista, California. Although Shigeru's aunt attempted to formally adopt Shigeru, the adoption was not completed before the 18th birthday. Under current immigration law, Shigeru would have had to have been adopted before the age of 16 to obtain legal immigration status in the United States. Shigeru's younger sibling was adopted by another family while another sibling was married to an American citizen. Shigeru attended Eastlake High School and graduated with honors in 2000. This bill easily fits within the modern-era private immigration bill precedent. Private immigration bills have been enacted where the foreigners, the aliens, have been abandoned by their parents or the parents had died. As this bill is consistent with private immigration bill precedent, and the Department of Homeland Security report revealed no adverse information about the beneficiary, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, and I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for all of his efforts on companion legislation.