Ted Poe

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it's with great pride but a heavy heart that I honor a fallen son of Texas tonight, a United States Army soldier from my Second Congressional District. Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth gave his life fighting terrorists on a battlefield in a far, faraway, desolate land near Kandahar in Afghanistan on July 10, 2010. He died from injuries caused by an IED, the weapon of terrorists, those cowards that hide in their holes in the rugged deserts and come out like rats at night and plant roadside bombs to kill Americans, women, and children. This is Jesse Ainsworth. He was 24 years of age. He was an American warrior, and he was born in Texas and Jesse was an all American boy. He loved to hunt and fish in the woods near his home in Dayton, Texas. And after attending Dayton High School, he joined the United States Army. He was a team leader with the 1st Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division out of Ft. Drum. Jesse served two combat tours in Iraq before deploying to Afghanistan. And, Madam Speaker, he re-enlisted after his second tour of duty in Iraq and then that is why he went to Afghanistan. Yesterday, I talked to Jesse's mother, Margeret Hutchins, and she said a lot about her son. They live in a little small community called Kenefic, just outside of Dayton. Jesse was Margeret's only son. And Margeret said Jesse was her hero. She said she used to pick him up when he was a little kid from kindergarten, and every Friday they'd go to Wal-Mart and buy some toy for him. She said ever since Jesse was an itty bitty fellow he wanted to be a soldier in the United States Army. And the last time she talked to him, Jesse said he was setting up camp out in the middle of no place in the middle of the desert. And he asked his mother to send him, in the next care package, a Big Red soft drink and some Copenhagen chewing tobacco in that care package. Jesse was all Texas. Jesse loved the Army, he loved his country, and he loved being a soldier. He was doing what he wanted to do. He was an Army man. All of the flags in the small town of Dayton, Texas, are flying at half mast this week. There are signs all over this town of just 5,000, handmade signs, electronic signs throughout the community honoring Jesse. The services will be held on Saturday at the Dayton Community Center, and the whole town will turn out to honor their native son and honor his family. Jesse is survived by his wife, Sarah; their 6-month old daughter, Lanna Rose; and his daughter, Lexie, who is three; Jesse's mother, Margeret; and stepfather, Wesley; and Jesse's two sisters, Rebecca and Shane. Jesse will then be buried at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Houston, Texas. All of his fellow soldiers gave some, Madam Speaker, but Jesse Ainsworth gave all in his defense for freedom. Our brave troopers go to war defending freedom and liberty in faraway lands. In the dark, cold desert night and the parched, insufferable desert heat, these brave warriors pay with their blood and sacrifice for freedom and liberty and for America. They sanctify with their blood lands they have never seen, and they fight for people they do not know. Madam Speaker, I have a recent photograph of Jesse. Here he is in Afghanistan with an Afghan farmer. You see, that's what our American troops are doing. They are the greatest ambassadors for freedom and liberty and the American way in the world. And here they are, here Jesse is with a person in Afghanistan, a nation that Jesse and his fellow troopers are liberating. Patrick Henry once said, ``The battle, sir, is not to the strong, it is to the vigilant, to the active, to the brave.'' Madam Speaker, those words still ring true today, and our American soldiers carry those values into battle because they are ``Army Strong.'' Jesse Ainsworth was such a soldier and a family man. He was that hero who has given his life to something bigger than himself. So when we gather Saturday to honor this fallen American, Jesse's flag-draped coffin will be carried by the Honor Guard. The old war horses of the Patriot Guard, those motorcycle riders made primarily of Vietnam veterans, they will stand vigil over this beloved family and over their sacred fallen brother carrying American flags. The rifles will fire the 21-gun salute, and the bugle will sound taps for the last time as the name of Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth is placed forever on the hallowed roles of those who have given their lives defending American freedom and liberty. He will be surrounded by his family for the last time, and the war will be over for Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth. But the war will never end for his family. It has been said what we have done for ourselves dies with us. What we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal. Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth is that rare breed, that American breed that lived and died for something bigger than himself. And today we honor his life and his sacrifice. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people are opposed to the administration's ban on deepwater drilling. Almost three-quarters of American people, 73 percent, say the ban is not necessary. But in spite of the will of most Americans, in spite of two court rulings that say that the moratorium is arbitrary, capricious, and punitive, the administration is determined to kill jobs in the deepwater industry. You just can't hit the pause button on the gulf coast economy. The President's moratorium on drilling is destroying lives, and good people are being put out of work on purpose by this administration. These aren't statistics. These are real people, hardworking people. How do they pay their mortgage and buy their groceries and put gasoline in their car? On Friday, one of the world's biggest drilling companies had to move another deepwater rig to the Middle East and out of the Gulf of Mexico because of this moratorium. All of the good-paying jobs are going with it. Mr. Speaker, the moratorium on drilling is the second disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and it's brought to us by this administration. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield? That's exactly what will occur is not only energy costs, but we also must remember that this deepwater drilling and the crude oil that comes from the deep water produces millions of other products besides just fuel. All of the plastics, many of our technology comes from some base of crude oil. And all of that is affected, and the costs of all those items that are produced in our refineries and petrochemical plants will be affected because of this arbitrary, capricious, and punitive decision to just stop deepwater drilling. I would hope the administration would re-evaluate their position, quit suing Americans, get out of the courtroom and get down on the Gulf of Mexico and fix this problem and let people go back to work. I yield back.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the third front. We have the first front in the war in Afghanistan, the second front is the war in Iraq, and the third front is the border with our neighbors to the south--Mexico. We are finally beginning to learn that there is concrete evidence of a new border plan by this administration. The administration's new plan is this. And let me show you. The plan is to put up warning signs--signs like this one right here. And I happen to have a photograph of one of these signs. It's on Interstate 8 in Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management began posting these signs recently in locations along Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend in Arizona. It's an east-west stretch of highway about 60 miles long. Phoenix is 30 miles to the north. The border with Mexico is 80 to 100 miles to the south. About a dozen of these signs have been posted. You probably can't see this, Madam Speaker, so let's go through it. Of course, at the top it's in red: Danger: Public Warning--Travel Not Recommended. The Federal Government, the administration, and its new border security plan is to tell us, Don't travel this highway. It's not recommended by the Federal Government. The administration has issued travel warnings to citizens to not travel in parts of America. It's just too dangerous for Americans to go through America. The sign goes on and says some more. Right here, the first bullet point: Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area. So now we know why we're not to be in that part of Arizona--because it's not safe. There's an active area of drug smuggling and human trafficking. And so the remedy of the Federal Government is warning Americans to stay away. Further, the sign says: Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed. Another reason why Americans are encouraged not to go through America. It's just not safe. Now, would those visitors be American? It must be because the sign is actually written in English, supposedly for Americans traveling this interstate highway across America. The sign further gives some more warning comments: Stay Away from Trash, Clothing, Backpacks, and Abandoned Vehicles. We're not supposed to get near those items when we travel Interstate 8. You see, it continues to say: If You See Suspicious Activity--and this must be important because it is underlined--Do Not Confront. Move Away. Call 911. Now let's go over this warning on this interstate highway sign telling Americans not to travel through America because it's just too dangerous because of the illegal activity in the area. It says, If you see something that you think is suspicious, don't confront those people. Move away and call 911. Now let's go through this a little bit. Call 911. You pick up the phone, you call 911. Normally, when you call 911, you get local law enforcement to answer the phone. You don't get the Federal Government because they don't answer 911 calls. So our government is suing Arizona and doesn't want Arizona local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws and border security, but local security--police officers--will answer 911. They will probably say, Well, we're not supposed to be enforcing immigration laws so we're going to turn you over to ICE. They connect you to ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And what are they going to say? If we actually get to the Federal Government, what will they say? They will probably say, Well, read the rest of the sign and move away, because we have really not tried to enforce the law along Interstate 8 in Arizona. Seems to be a little nonsense to me. Here's my favorite one down here at the bottom. The last one says, The BLM--that's the Bureau of Land Management. They manage Federal lands in the United States to take care of us all. It says: The Bureau of Land Management Encourages Visitors to Use Public Lands North of Interstate 8. In other words, don't go south of Interstate 8, that 80 miles to 90 miles to Mexico. Go north of Interstate 8. Phoenix is only 30 miles from here, by the way. So, are we ceding as a country land south of Interstate 8 to Mexico, the drug cartels, to the human smugglers, to the drug traffickers? Are we just giving that land back because our Federal Government says, Sorry, we're not protecting that part of America. We're not going to keep that safe. That is unfortunate, giving this land over to the crime cartels. And so ceding the land to Mexico is not a border security plan at all. Our government's plan seems to be simple--erect a few signs, tell Americans to run and hide in their own country, and then sue the State of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens. That's not a plan. That's nonsense. The Federal Government is missing in action. We need to send the National Guard to the border and protect Americans. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a really mad Cajun named Timmy Bergeron. He is from Houma, Louisiana, and runs an oil-related drilling business. Timmy's letter is to the President and says, ``I am terribly troubled that after striving to find jobs for Americans, you make a hasty decision to stop drilling for 6 months. Did you stop coal mining after all the incidents they have been having? No. Did you stop the airlines after all the crashes and accidents they have been having? No. Now you want to shut down the oil industry for 6 months, which will hurt tens of thousands of workers! I only hope you understand the trickle-down effect this will have on many industries.'' Mr. Speaker, the rest of the letter gets a bit more colorful, but Mr. Bergeron wants to know why the President is intentionally putting him out of business. Maybe the President will write him back. Meanwhile, the ill-advised deepwater drilling ban is putting people out of work and is the second disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the administration continues its assaultive crusade against the workers in the domestic deepwater drilling industry. Yesterday, it doubled down its relentless destruction of the gulf coast energy industry by issuing yet another ill-advised moratorium on deepwater drilling. Never mind that two courts have said the first moratorium on drilling was ``arbitrary, capricious and wrong.'' The Federal Government furnished no credible evidence or specifics that shutting down deepwater drilling was absolutely necessary. Never mind the facts, never mind that the second edict from the administration violates the spirit of the court rulings. Never mind that this job-killing ban is more about the politics of panic than about the safety of offshore drilling. The administration is intentionally and knowingly destroying domestic energy and making us more dependent on foreign oil. The administration is permanently sinking the jobs of offshore workers, and the President's plan is succeeding. Jobs are being lost, rigs are leaving the gulf to friendlier waters. And why? Who knows. The second disaster of the gulf is brought to you by this administration and our own Federal Government. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it's my solemn honor tonight to pay tribute to an American hero and a son of Texas killed in Afghanistan in service to our country. Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo died in Afghanistan supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Edwardo was killed by injuries sustained when an IED was detonated near his dismounted patrol. Madam Speaker, IEDs are the way the cowards of the desert fight against our Americans. Sergeant Loredo was just 34 years of age, and it was just one day before his 35th birthday when he gave his life for our Nation. This great American warrior was born and raised in Houston, Texas. He was an Army Airborne soldier. Edwardo served combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and was with C Company, 2nd Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg. Now the 82nd Airborne Division has had its share of famous soldiers, from Sergeant Alvin C. York to General James M. Gavin. But the real story of the 82nd Airborne Division is the selfless men like Edwardo Loredo--one of the thousands of paratroopers in jump boots, baggy pants, and maroon berets. They jump out of aircraft loaded with a ton of gear and stare danger right in the face. And if you are looking for peril, you will find our paratroopers there, jumping out of airplanes into the worst hellholes on the planet, finding the terrorists cowering in their caves, taking the fight to the enemy, and treading where the timid dare not go. You see, Madam Speaker, our Airborne soldiers plant the American flag and say, The American soldier is here to defend freedom and liberty. They go to liberate, not to conquer. And you can point them to danger, and they'll jump right in. They're the Airborne soldiers of the 82nd. They're called the ``All Americans,'' signified by their famous ``AA'' patch on their shoulder. Their division was first formed by soldiers from all of the 48 States at the time. Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo was one of such American troopers. He graduated from Sam Houston High School and joined the Army shortly after graduation. He met his wife, Jennifer, in the Army. First Sergeant Jennifer Loredo, Edwardo's wife, was deployed to northern Afghanistan when she got news that her husband had been killed in southern Afghanistan. This fine young couple are examples of the absolute best America has. They sacrificed so much in service for the country that they love. Edwardo called his fellow soldiers his family as well, and he loved the Army life. Edwardo is survived by his 2-year-old son, Eddie; his 7-year-old daughter, Laura; and his 13-year-old stepdaughter, Alexis. His family says Edwardo was an adventurer. He adored his wife and father, and he loved to cook for his family. America is blessed to have such a rare breed of man who serves as protector to his family and to his Nation. Madam Speaker, this is a photograph of Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo. General Douglas MacArthur talked about such men, and he summed up their service in three words when he said, ``Duty, honor, country.'' Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what these people will be, what they can be, and what they will always be. Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo lived those words. He honored his country and his family with his courage and his dedication, and he gave his life for the things he believed in. It was once said that what we do for ourselves dies with us, but what we do for the others and the world remains and is immortal. Edwardo's sacrifice will not be forgotten by our Nation. Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo's name is now written on the sacred rolls of American patriots who paid in blood for this Nation's freedom and for the freedom of other nations. Today I offer a grateful nation's thanks and prayers. We are grateful that a man like Edwardo Loredo lived and loved America. My heartfelt condolences to Edwardo's wife and children, his friends and family in Houston, and to the 82nd Airborne family. Today we honor this great American warrior's life and are humbled by his greatest of sacrifices. We are truly blessed to have called Staff Sergeant Edwardo Loredo an American. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. While I support some of the provisions of this legislation, I certainly believe responsible parties for this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico near my home State of Texas, should be held accountable to every extent of the law, and injured individuals and the families of those who have died should be compensated. However, I wish to address just one provision of this act: The detrimental effect on maritime shipping in the United States if this legislation is passed. The unintended consequences of H.R. 5503 could be widespread. Among other things, H.R. 5503 repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which is a drastic fundamental change in American maritime law. This change would end the longstanding practice in the United States that all maritime claims be determined in one Federal forum. It also ends the limitation on U.S. vessels owners' liability, a limitation which is in place in virtually every other country in the maritime industry. The loss of this limitation will handicap U.S. ship owners in the competitive world of shipping. H.R. 5503 would cause insurance rates to spin out of control, damaging American maritime industry and putting thousands of American jobs in jeopardy. American shipping is already in serious decline. In fact, there are only 220 United States flagged vessels in a global shipping fleet of 37,000. I fear this legislation could put our remaining 220 shippers out of business. The maritime industry in the United States would be sunk because they would not be able to obtain insurance to operate. Then, more Americans would be out of work. We should not purposely put any more Americans out of work when jobs are scarce. Just as the offshore drilling moratorium was hastily enacted by the administration and has since been declared illegal by a Federal judge, this bill is also rushed to the floor, I believe, without consideration of some of the unintended consequences. The consequences of this bill will cause a further disaster because of the Deepwater explosion and put more Americans out of work.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the violence continues to spill across our southern border with Mexico. This week, seven shots from gunfire hit City Hall in downtown El Paso, Texas, in more cross-border violence. City Hall is over a half mile from the Rio Grande border with Mexico. The El Paso Police said stray bullets came from a drug cartel shoot-out in Juarez, Mexico. In 1911, 99 years ago, stray bullets rained down on Americans from across the border when revolutionary Pancho Villa seized the city of Juarez, Mexico. Those stray bullets wounded Americans and damaged American properties. Bandits raided ranches and attacked border towns. There was lawlessness on the border frontier. History is repeating itself. But in 1911, President Taft took swift action. He deployed the Cavalry from Fort Bliss to the border and to the areas along the border. They stopped the violence on American lives and property. But today, this administration is missing in action on the border. Meanwhile, the border war continues. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I rise totally in support of H.R. 3360, the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010. This legislation passed the House with strong support in November of last year, and I am pleased to see it return from the other body as an improved bill ready for final passage. I commend my colleague, Ms. Matsui of California, who has been relentless as an advocate for protection of the cruise line passengers. Mr. Speaker, every year cruise line companies carry over 10 million Americans to and from American ports. The cruise lines promise Americans safety, security, fun, and relaxation aboard the ships. But as we have seen, safety is not something the cruise lines are always prepared to guarantee. According to the FBI, sexual assault is the leading crime reported and investigated by the agency among crimes that occur on the high seas. In fact, in a 2005 hearing before the Committee on Government Reform, Chris Swecker, assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI, noted that, ``Sexual assaults are the dominant threat to women and minors on the high seas, with the majority of these incidences occurring on cruise ships.'' His statements are backed up by the disturbing frequency of assaults onboard these ships. During one 6- month period in 2007, the cruise lines reported 41 separate instances of sexual assault to the FBI, 19 of which were categorized as rape. There are troubling patterns to these assaults. In 2007, a Los Angeles Times report revealed that over a 32-month period, Royal Caribbean reported over 250 incidents of sexual assault, battery, and harassment. But the most startling fact about these cases: Almost 40 percent of these crimes were committed by cruise company employees. In fact, Ms. Matsui's constituent, Laurie Dishman, was sexually assaulted by a cruise ship security guard. Laurie Dishman knew what to do, which was call her Member of Congress. And when Ms. Matsui found out about this situation, she did what she needed to do and worked relentlessly with both sides of the body here to make sure that this legislation came to a vote and now final passage. Mr. Speaker, the frequency of these cases and the overwhelming statistics should not be tolerated. If U.S.-based cruise ship companies who own and operate foreign-flagged passenger vessels want to access millions of Americans who travel on these ships, they should be required to implement simple, proper safety and security improvements for all travelers. As the cochair and founder of the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus, I am proud to support H.R. 3360. This bill will implement necessary safety measures onboard cruise ships, including video surveillance and proper documentation of complaints by passengers. Most importantly, the law mandates that cruise ship personnel contact both the FBI and the Coast Guard as soon as serious crimes like homicide, kidnapping, and assault are reported by the passengers. This strong legislation will protect the safety of millions of Americans and hold law violators accountable for sexual assault on the high seas. No longer will criminals be able to hide on our oceans when they commit crimes against Americans. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when I was at a town hall meeting in Texas recently, a local man came up to me afterward to talk about his concerns over where our country was headed-- something to do with a fiery inferno in a hand basket. Anyway, as he was talking to me, I noticed his T-shirt. Here's what it said: ``I love my Bible,'' and it had a photograph of the Bible, ``and I love my guns,'' with a photograph of two .45 Colt revolvers. Naturally they were in the right order. After all, he was a local preacher. The most important right we have as Americans is the freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom of religion. It's first in the constitutional Bill of Rights because without it, none of the rest would be possible. The right to bear arms is the Second Amendment because without it, we could not protect the First Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decision simply stated the obvious as it is written in the Bill of Rights: ``A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' Now I'm sure the halls of academia were all up in arms about the right to bear arms. The media immediately began spreading the shocking news: the Supreme Court actually upheld the Constitution. Oh, the hysteria they went through. They said, Murder rates will surely double upon the mere announcement of this. Never mind the fact that more gun control does not lower murder rates; it actually increases them. Look at this city, Washington, D.C., the toughest gun control in the country. But let's don't let the facts get in the way of a political agenda. I wonder how the media and the antigun protesters would have felt about the First Amendment being ignored for political purposes. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects citizens from the power of government. People have rights. Government has no rights. Government has power. And when citizens give away their rights, like the Second Amendment, government increases its power and oppression over the people. The Supreme Court ruled accurately and restored the rights of all Americans based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which commands that no State shall ``deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' To truly understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, we need to understand the men who actually wrote the Constitution and what they said when it was ratified. The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a strong Federal Government would trample on individual freedom and individual rights because that's what happened to the colonists under the power of Great Britain. Governments historically do that to their people, trample on individual rights. That's historical. So after the ratification of the Constitution, the Framers knew that a declaration of rights had to be added to protect basic individual rights, rights that are inalienable, created by our Creator and not created or given to us by government. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the government--that's the Federal Government--from disarming the public like the British Army did to American citizens. The right of the free people to defend freedom and protect themselves was so important that it was placed second in the Bill of Rights behind the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of religion and the freedom of press and the right to peacefully assemble. Currently, gun control advocates and their elitist allies wish to subject the people to more government oppression of freedom by denying individuals the right to arm themselves. Thomas Jefferson knew the importance of an armed citizenry. He said: ``No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms.'' Samuel Adams wrote: ``The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their arms.'' And of course James Madison, who helped write the Bill of Rights, once wrote that the Americans had ``the advantage of being armed,'' and that other nations' governments were ``afraid to trust the people with such arms.'' So leave it to a Texas preacher to keep it all in perspective. You see, without the Second Amendment, you can't protect the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of press and the freedom to peacefully assemble without the Second Amendment. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, half way across the world, nearly 37,000 Americans gave their lives in a struggle against communism from the summer of 1950 to the summer of 1953. How does one forget? Overshadowed by World War II and Vietnam, the Korean War has commonly been referred to as ``The Forgotten War'', although it figures prominently in the development of historical events. Friday, June 25, marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War. In the early hours of June 25 1950, communist forces from the north crossed the 38th parallel and invaded the Republic of South Korea. Two days after the North Korean invasion, President Harry S. Truman authorized the use of American military forces in Korea. Nearly two million Americans stepped up in attempt to triumph evil in the Korean theatre. The Korean War was a civil war; Koreans fought and killed each other on their own soil. The economic and social danger to the Korean nation was incalculable. It was also one of the first episodes of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Others, including a communist China, joined in based on their ideologies. Remembering the Korean War is painful for many veterans who fought in it. Those who were there remember the violent hand to hand combat and the extreme conditions they faced. Maybe that's why it's forgotten. Or maybe it's due to the fact that history frowns upon conflicts in which there is no clear winner. But for whatever reasons there are, the Americans who served, the lives that were lost, and the cause that was fought for should never be forgotten. It might not have been the most glorious war in our history, but nearly two million Americans rose up to triumph evil on the Korean Peninsula during those violent years. That's pretty unforgettable.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, the administration promised to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. But the troops still aren't there. Now the White House is saying it'll be another month before there's a ``steep ramp-up'' of the troops--and they'll be there only 4 months. And there'll be a complete ramp-down by June of 2011. And they'll be unarmed National Guardsmen. You see, the troops aren't actually going to the border. There will be unarmed guards guarding computers 50 miles north of the border. And there'll be 1,200 troops but they all won't be there at the same time. That's like saying a store is open 24 hours but just not 24 hours in a row. What kind of border security plan is that? There is no sense of urgency to stop the violence and the killing along the border. Too much rhetoric and too little action coming out of the White House. Like my grandfather used to say, there's more thunder than rain. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, four Christian missionaries were recently arrested for disorderly conduct. What was their behavior that got them arrested? These four Christians were peacefully handing out the Gospel of John outside an Arab cultural festival. Now, the festival was not a private or even a Muslim event. It was an Arab festival, free and open to the public. A video shows the Christian group, that included a former Muslim, outside, about a block away from that event. They were standing quietly on the corner handing out Bibles, when they were arrested by no less than eight police officers. Now, under sharia law it is forbidden to preach Christianity to a Muslim. But, Madam Speaker, these discriminatory arrests against Christians did not occur in a Muslim country; they occurred in Dearborn, Michigan. The First Amendment of our Constitution safeguards freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression even for Christians. Maybe the police in Dearborn, Michigan, haven't read the Constitution. These arrests are shameful, whether the police in Dearborn, Michigan, like it or not. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, we honor a fallen American warrior today--a Texas soldier who gave his life serving this country, this country he loved. U.S. Army Specialist Matthew Catlett was an infantryman with the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky--one of the most prestigious and decorated divisions in the entire United States Army. The Screaming Eagle warriors landed in Normandy on D-day, and fought the Battle of the Bulge--the crucial turning points of World War II. The Screaming Eagles fought in the rice paddies of Vietnam. They've stood vigil in the deserts and towns of Iraq, and they're leading in Afghanistan the fight against the cowards in the desert--the Taliban. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell you something, Madam Speaker, that there is no better fighting machine in the world than the 101st. They were the first conventional unit to deploy in support of the American war on terrorism. The 101st's ``Easy Company'' was portrayed in the series ``Band of Brothers,'' and like those in the 101st who have so nobly held that line in their storied history, Matthew gave his life with four other fellow soldiers that day. It was the bloodiest day of the war so far this year. Madam Speaker, this is a photograph of Matthew Catlett. He and his fellow soldiers were killed when their Humvee was hit by an improvised explosive device. That is called an IED. That is the cowards' way, the Taliban's way, of fighting our troops. Though, as Shakespeare said, ``They shall be remembered--we few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.'' Matthew Catlett, this young American hero, was only 23 years of age when he gave his life for this country. There is nothing as noble as the character of a man who so willingly dedicates his life for others. The American warriors serving our military understand that better than anybody. They embody what is meant to be an American, and Matthew Catlett was such a man. He gave his life on June 7 on a battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting the terrorists who attacked America on September the 11th from that desolate, faraway land. Matthew grew up in Cypress, Texas. He joined the United States Army right out of Cyprus Ridge High School, always knowing he wanted to be a military man, a soldier in the United States Army. He served a tour of duty in Iraq 3 years ago and had just been redeployed to Afghanistan in April of this year. Our American warriors make great sacrifices in the heat and the dust and the deserts and the rough, rugged mountains of Afghanistan, where summer temperatures reach almost 120 degrees in the parched desert landscape. Our soldiers track down terrorists under the worst possible conditions, but no matter what hole these cowards try to hide in, our soldiers are able to hunt them down and to keep America safe. We grieve the loss of this American warrior, but we celebrate and honor his life and his service. We are fortunate that a man like Matthew ever lived. Matthew stood for the best of those American ideals and values exemplified in our fighting infantrymen. General Robert E. Lee once said, ``Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.'' Matthew Catlett did his duty. He served this Nation as the fine soldier he always wanted to be. All of his fellow soldiers gave some, but Matthew Catlett gave all in defense of this Nation. He fought for liberty for a people he did not know in a land that he had never been. He was the American breed. He was a rare breed. So we honor our American warrior, and we honor the families left behind who grieve the loss of their loved one. Specialist Matthew Catlett was buried with full military honors in Houston's Veterans Memorial Cemetery. His draped coffin was surrounded by flags carried by the old war horses of the Patriot Guard. Those are motorcycle riders, mainly Vietnam veterans, that surround fallen soldiers and their families during a time of grief. So today I extend my prayers and condolences to Matthew's wife, Brytnee; his two young daughters, Ryann and Stephanie; his parents; his relatives; and his friends. Their American warrior is home, his duty is done, and he is at peace. George Orwell said, ``We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.'' Our grateful Nation will always remember that Specialist Matthew Catlett stood always ready to do his duty for us. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Mexico has joined a lawsuit against Arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement law. In its legal brief, Mexico says the Arizona law is unconstitutional. That's right. The foreign country of Mexico is lecturing us on our Constitution. I guess President Calderon, like our Attorney General, hasn't read Arizona's law either, because the Arizona law is constitutional. President Calderon just doesn't want the law enforced. He wants open borders so illegals can illegally come to America. By the way, hypocritical Mexico enforces its own immigration laws, but it doesn't want us to do the same. President Calderon should not meddle in U.S. affairs. If the Feds join the lawsuit against Arizona, it will be Mexico and the U.S. Government vs. Arizona. Ironically, Mexico and the U.S. Government together will be arguing against border security and public safety while Arizona will be arguing for the basic right to protect its citizens. Isn't there something wrong with that concept? And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Our quarrel, Mr. Speaker, is not with the people of Iran; our quarrel is with the Government of Iran and its consistent philosophy to annihilate the State of Israel, and also to the violations of human rights that it commits against its own people. The people of Iran have spoken out against their illegitimate government, and because of that they have been brutalized, they have been jailed, they have been shot, and they have been imprisoned for a long time all because of freedom of speech. The sanctions in this resolution go against those in the Government of Iran who deny human rights to their own people. That is one aspect of this resolution that is very important to make sure that the people of Iran, the good folks in Iran who want to replace their government have human rights, and especially that ability of freedom to speak out against their illegitimate government that seeks to destroy not only the State of Israel, but the entire West.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 5299.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding some time. Madam Speaker, this is an important resolution. It puts the United States on record as to where we stand in our part of the world when it comes to democracy and in supporting our allies. Colombia is an ally of the United States. When I was in Colombia in April, down in the jungle with the narcotics police--with General Patino--helping and watching how they fight the cartels and FARC, I learned from the Colombians that they like Americans, not just their government but the people of Colombia. Yet that is not universally true in South America. There are a lot of folks who don't care much for the United States, but the Colombian people are our allies, not only politically, but also, they like Americans for who we are. They support us, and we should support them. It was a good day for democracy when President Santos was elected this past weekend. We should show Colombia and the rest of the world that we support this democracy in South America. We should also support the Colombian-American Free Trade Agreement. This is an important agreement to show that we mean business in supporting another democracy. Rather than talking about trading with the Chinese, we ought to talk about trading with democracies. This is one of those democracies, and it is being stalled for political reasons. We need to support this. We need to pass it through this House and to make sure that the Colombians know that we mean, in word and deed, that they are our ally, especially our ally in free trade. So I commend this resolution. We must make sure that we support democracy anywhere it occurs in the world, and we must support freedom as well. Let's move a step forward, and let's move forward with the free trade agreement with our friends, our allies, and our neighbors in Colombia.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding. I also want to thank my friend from California (Mr. Costa) for introducing this Resolution 1457, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important resolution. The people of Iran are under the oppression of the little fellow from the desert, Ahmadinejad. And the little fella claimed that he won the election last year, but the whole world knows, including he, that he stole the election in Iran. The people of Iran want democracy, they want freedom, and so they took to the streets opposing the little fella. And what did he do? He retaliated. He used his henchmen, his goon squad to come out and brutalize his own people, who were unarmed but yet taking to the streets wanting freedom and a legitimate election. He injured them; he beat them; he hung them, and he shot them, peaceful Iranians wanting freedom and democracy. But the folks of Iran were not going to be intimidated by the crimes committed against them in their pursuit for freedom and a free election, so they have continued to speak out. By continuing to speak out, of course, more of them get arrested. As my friend from California mentioned, it includes everybody: Women and children, lawyers and journalists. They are all arrested, brutalized, and some are killed in the name of keeping the little fella, Ahmadinejad, in power in Iran. This past week in Paris, France, 100,000 people, mainly Iranians, marched in support of freedom and democracy for their homeland in Iran. And it's important that we in America let everybody know where we stand when it comes to freedom versus tyranny, freedom versus a dictatorship, that we stand by the people of the nation who want self-determination and freedom. The Iranians kind of wonder where we stand as a Nation. They are concerned because, you see, they get their government-controlled media and it tells them one thing, that the United States is not supportive. So we need to make it clear to them that we do support them. And they don't want weapons. They don't want armament. They don't want even money. They just want to know that this country, the center and hope for the world when it comes to human rights and democracy, stands with the people, the people of Iran in their quest to control their own destiny and control their own government. There is no freedom in Iran as long as this regime is in power and Ahmadinejad continues to be the dictator, the tyrant of the desert who threatens to destroy not only our ally Israel, but destroy the West as soon as he can get his hands on those nuclear weapons. He needs to go. His time has come. It needs to go. And the way that that can happen is when the people of Iran take control of their own country. The best hope for the Iranians, the best hope for the world, Madam Speaker, is for a regime change in Iran by the people of Iran. So we should support that endeavor. We should tell those freedom-loving folks, those sons of liberty, those daughters of democracy, that we in America, halfway around the world, who believe in liberty and believe in democracy and believe in freedom, we stand with them. We support them morally, and we support them because they have the right to determine their own destiny. Our quarrel as a Nation is not with the people of Iran. Our quarrel is with this dictator, this tyrant, the little fellow from the desert who wants to destroy his own nation and the rest of the world as well. So I support this resolution and I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) for bringing this to the floor. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a Federal judge stated yesterday the administration's ban on deepwater drilling was improper and illegal. The government imposed a 6-month moratorium after the BP disaster. Non- BP oil-related industries sued, saying the ban would put them out of business and cost thousands of jobs. The government tried to justify the ban, but the judge said, ``The government's explanation abuses reason and common sense.'' The government claimed its engineers supported the ban, but that's just not true. The judge granted the injunction, stating the ban was ``arbitrary'', ``capricious'' and ``punitive''. In other words, the administration had no scientific basis for this absurd moratorium. The judge stated the oil-related industries ``would suffer irreparable harm'' by the moratorium. Of course, the administration doesn't care. Determined to stop deepwater drilling, the administration is going to appeal and issue another moratorium. Mr. Speaker, why does the administration hate the energy industry in the gulf? Why does the administration want to purposely destroy American jobs? President Reagan was right: ``The government is the problem.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, sexual predators, sexual deviates, sexual criminals are the most despicable of all persons in our society. We can see, maybe, why somebody steals, and maybe we can see why people use drugs, but we as a society do not understand, nor should we, why a person would sexually violate somebody else. You see, when a sex offender commits a crime against another person, in many cases, that person loses their dignity. The predator tries to destroy their humanity, tries to destroy their soul. I spent a lot of time at the courthouse--8 years--prosecuting cases. I saw a lot of those people. I tried death penalty cases and spent 20 years on the bench hearing everything from stealing to killing. During that time, I saw a lot of these victims of sexual predators come to the courthouse. Many of them during that time seemed, after the crimes were over, to have sort of lost their way. They tried. They tried to recover. They tried to recruit their dignity, but they didn't. I even had victims, years after those cases were over with, call me and try to get other bearings in their lives. Some, unfortunately, even committed suicide based upon those sexual crimes committed against them by sexual predators. Society needs to understand that these real people have real emotional problems. But, Madam Speaker, there is a rogue judge loose who is out of touch with victims. He seems to be a judge who is very sympathetic to the criminal who commits sexual predator crimes. Let me give you some examples. In the State of Connecticut, that State passed a version of Megan's Law which requires sexual offenders to register after they're convicted. This Federal judge said, Ah, that's unconstitutional because, as he said, ``It stigmatizes the sex offenders.'' In other words, it hurts their little feelings that they have to register on a sexual database. It seems to me that he was a criminal sympathizer, but the United States Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Federal judge and said his actions were wrong; they were in violation of the Constitution and were in poor judgment. The same judge consistently reduced the sentences of defendants who were connected to crimes regarding child pornography, and he made excuses for these offenders. He said, Well, it's not really their fault. They had bad childhoods. You know, I was on the bench a long time. I heard a lot of excuses, and this was one of them. He also said, Well, it wasn't really their fault. They had addictions. This one I like the best. He said, Well, it's not really their fault because they had posttraumatic stress because of the fact they were being prosecuted and people knew about it. Well, yeah. Of course. Hopefully, they had some kind of reaction in that they felt like they were being insulted by being prosecuted. It's kind of like those folks in California, the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents and then complained to the judge that they should get sympathy and compassion because they were now orphans. That's what the judge sort of says in these cases. He also, in those types of cases, reduced the convictions of sex tourism. Those are the guys, the deviates, who get on the Internet and lure girls to have sex with them. He reduced those sentences, saying, Well, they're generally law-abiding citizens. That's not all. In the famous case of the Roadside Strangler in Connecticut, Michael Ross, here is the kind of guy he was. He kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered eight women in Connecticut. He is tried by jury. The jury gives him the death penalty--yes, even in Connecticut. This was in 1987. Finally, the day of reckoning came in 2004. He is supposed to get executed, and this Federal judge intervenes in this case. The judge excused the killer because he suffered, according to what the judge said, from a disorder of sexual sadism. What is that? In other words, because of the perversion, he should have a defense? Of course, that is not a legal defense in any court in the country. But the Federal judge said he should be excused from that conduct. So the judge made up a defense for the individual, stayed the execution for a long time, in spite of the jury's verdict that the person should get the death penalty; in spite of the fact that Michael Ross said, If I didn't get caught by the police, I would do it again; in spite of the fact that Michael Ross told the media that he should be executed for the sake of the families. The Supreme Court, rightfully so, overruled the judge, withdrew the stay, and ordered Michael Ross to be executed, and he met his maker in 2005. And now this judge, Robert Chatigny, is to be appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals at the second circuit appellate court. This judge lacks judgment. This judge doesn't follow the law. This judge is apparently biased in favor of sexual predators. This judge places his personal opinions above the law. And this judge should be in the Judges Hall of Shame, not on the appellate court of the United States hearing cases. The Senate should not confirm this person to be an appellate judge in the United States. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Thank you, Judge Carter. I appreciate you yielding a few moments on this very important issue. Of course being from the Houston area and growing up with NASA, I have seen the success of this wonderful program. And like you and many others, as a mere child in 1969, I watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. And, of course, the first word when man landed on the Moon was ``Houston,'' because that is where NASA was at the time and still is headquartered. A lot has come from space travel. A lot of our technology, our electronic technology, our computer technology, scientific knowledge, medical knowledge, all has come because America went to space. And as you mentioned, Judge Carter, we did so in just a few years with the challenge laid before us by President John F. Kennedy. Back in the sixties and the seventies and even in the eighties, and before that, Americans, when determined to do something, they could do it. And that is why we went to space, because nothing was going to get in the way of America going to space and landing people on the Moon. But for some reason, and I think political reasons, we see the end of that wonderful glorious exploration, the last frontier. America has always led in the space program except, as you mentioned, when the Russians put the first Sputnik in space. And the benefits that have been received from NASA's spaceflight have been shared all over the world, from weather satellites on. But now, because of a change in philosophy, the administration wants to go a new direction. That direction, of course, is not to space, not to the Moon, not to using the shuttle, not to keeping manned spacecraft available for Americans to go to the space station, because when that last shuttle flight is over with, we are done. We are out of spacecraft. We have no way to go into space. So if we want to put an American in space after that last shuttle flight is over, we are going to have to hitchhike, and we are going to have to hitchhike with our good buddies the Russians. And right now the Russians charge us to fly with them as a passenger in one of their spacecraft. It started out at $45 million, and then $50 million, and then $55 million, and now it's $60 million to go into space with the Russians. But when they get the monopoly on spaceflight, when that last shuttle has finished its flight, who's to say what they'll charge us to go into space or if they'll let us even be a passenger in one of their spacecraft. And then you have got the Chinese over here, you know, the people we owe our lives to and our debt to. They are working on a space program as well. And now there's that little tyrant in the desert, Ahmadinejad. The Iranians are working on spaceflight. They have already sent a spacecraft into outer space. I think it carried a frog, a snake, and two turtles. But now they want to go into space. So while other countries, not really our buddies or our friends, are moving forward in space exploration because they understand the importance of it, we are backing off. America is just waving the white flag and giving up its leadership in space. That ought not to be. And we're going to lose technology. We're going to lose the education that our scientists have because it's going to disappear. And these jobs that are going to be lost, these are good jobs. These are scientists, engineers, and they've worked on the space program for years. And now the Federal Government's coming in and saying we're going to turn all of this over to private industry. Myself, like you, Judge Carter, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free enterprise. But the private space exploration is 10 to 20 years behind the United States NASA program. They have 10 to 20 years to catch up to right where we are now. Can we afford to give up the leadership? Some say, well, it's to save us money. It isn't going to save us any money. We're just transferring Americans' wealth to an unproven entity, and that being the private sector. Let the private sector compete, but don't subsidize those programs. And it's unfortunate that we're seeing the demise of NASA, a self- inflicted wound by our own Federal Government. That's unfortunate, and we should not give up our space leadership to anybody for any reason. After all, it's also a national security issue. With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, ``capricious, arbitrary, and punitive.'' Those are the words of a Federal judge today in ruling about the moratorium for offshore drilling. The Federal judge said that the administration's decision to ban offshore drilling in the deepwater was capricious, arbitrary, and punitive--therefore, illegal. And the Federal judge granted an injunction by the hardworking folks in the gulf States to stop the moratorium because of the detrimental impact it would have. You see, Mr. Speaker, 150,000 people would lose their jobs if that moratorium continued. There are 3,900 wells in the gulf. Those 3,900 wells produce 31 percent of the Nation's domestic oil and 11 percent of our natural gas. In the deepwater area, we receive 17 percent of the Nation's domestic crude oil from that deepwater drilling. So those affected parties--by the arbitrary, capricious, and punitive ban of the Federal Government--decided to sue, and a Federal judge ruled that the administration's moratorium was improper, granted an injunction by the affected parties, and allowed them to now drill in deepwater. The Federal judge said that the people that sued the oil-related industries would suffer irreparable harm if this ban were to continue. The government's response was, Well, their losses would be trivial. The Federal judge didn't buy their argument. Also, before a preliminary injunction can be granted, Mr. Speaker-- these are rare animals--what happens is, someone goes to court and says that because they're going to be hurt so bad, the Federal judge has to stop somebody's action. In this case, our own government's action. And also, the Federal judge said, probably if there were a trial, the plaintiffs--those suing the Federal Government--would prevail on the merits and win in a jury trial. Granted the injunction because the harm done to the gulf, to the related industries, to the loss of jobs were massive and irreparable. When the Federal judge tried to hear what the Federal Government said about banning offshore drilling, the judge said, ``The government's explanation abuses reason and common sense.'' In other words, there was no reason, there is no common sense in the almighty Federal Government coming in and banning deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It made no sense. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to ban the whole deepwater drilling because of the actions of BP. Recently in Texas, we had a BP refinery explode. People were killed. Hundreds were hurt. But we didn't close all the refineries in the United States because of one accident. It wouldn't make sense. It defies reason and common sense. When a plane crashes and people die, that's horrible, but we don't close down the airline industry for 6 months because the Federal Government wants to eventually get around to finding out what happened. So the Federal judge who ruled in this case did so properly, and it was important for him to do so to prevent people from losing jobs. Jobs that were lost or would be lost because of the Federal government's action, not because of BP's action. So what's the Federal Government going to do about this? They're going to appeal. They don't like the ruling, so they want to appeal to the Fifth Circuit to try to overrule this judge. Why didn't the Federal Government just follow the law and allow deepwater drilling and not destroy the economy of the whole country because of arrogance and because of the lack of reason and common sense? So, Mr. Speaker, the disaster in the gulf continues to be the second disaster in the gulf for the lack of leadership. We still don't have a Federal plan. We don't know what the Federal Government's response is. It seems like, to me, FEMA is in charge of all of this because the results are always delay, delay, delay, but let's punish deepwater drilling. The Federal judge's rules will be upheld. The Federal Government needs to get with the program, understand there's a sense of urgency, find out what caused this problem, not let it happen again, clean up the mess, and move on down the road. Meanwhile, follow the law. Don't destroy the jobs in the Gulf Coast, and the Federal Government needs to get out of the way and let us continue safely to drill offshore and provide the energy needs of this country and also provide good working jobs for Americans. Otherwise, these jobs will leave the country, go to Brazil and Indonesia, and never return. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, real people in the gulf region are affected by the hasty, overreaction by the Federal Government to shut down deepwater drilling for 6 months in the Gulf of Mexico. The Obamatorium will bankrupt businesses and put thousands of people in the gulf region out of work. The Feds are in an apparent violation of the law which requires affected parties to be consulted before regulators dictate new regulations. Affected parties would be the oil industries that are shut down and the people of the Gulf States. So these people have sued the Federal Government and asked a Federal judge to impose an injunction against the Federal Government's unscientific drilling ban. And in just the last hour, a U.S. district judge has ruled the administration was wrong in illegally summarily stopping deepwater drilling. It is unfortunate the administration has to be sued by the people of this country to keep it from destroying American jobs. And that's just the way it is.