Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, having just returned from Iraq with other Members to see our military, we further met with Prime Minister Maliki. We discussed the killing of the 35 freedom-seeking Iranian dissidents at Camp Ashraf by Iraqi authorities. The United States has turned over the protection of these people who oppose Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad to Iraq. The Prime Minister's candid position was that the dissidents were responsible for their own deaths and the Iraqi Government was not to be blamed for their recent demise.

Upon requesting that we wished to visit the camp to hear from the people who actually saw what happened, you would have thought a political IED had gone off. The Prime Minister curtly rejected that request. In an effort to fairly get at the truth, the statements from the ones actually present at the homicides was important. It is disturbing that the Prime Minister refused us access to the Iranian dissidents he promised the United States he would protect.

What does the Iraqi Government have to hide? Maybe the truth. Meanwhile, 35 innocent people are dead and hundreds of others are wounded by this new ``free'' democracy in Iraq.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the United States is engaged in a war in the name of humanity. The President's actions did not follow the Constitution. They do not follow the War Powers Resolution. It is an unconstitutional action on the part of the United States.

I served on the bench in Texas for over 20 years trying criminal cases. In our daily business, we followed the law. And the law required that you have a trial. If convicted, the person was sentenced. I never tried a case that a person was so bad we just skipped the trial and we went ahead and sentenced them and then had the trial later to prove it was a good idea. We followed the law. And the same law that required a procedure in a trial that is in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution also says there is a procedure for going to war. And the procedure is that Congress, not the President, instigates war.

James Madison, a person who wrote the Constitution, said the Constitution supposes what the history of all government demonstrates: that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. Therefore, with studied care, we have vested the question of war with the legislature. That would be us. Congress. We have not fulfilled our obligation.

The war in Libya violates the Constitution, the War Powers Act. It is not in the national security of the United States. It is said, Well, the French, we may disrespect the French. Well, I say to the French: You respect our Constitution, and our Constitution says that the declaration and going to war is the responsibility of Congress, not any executive.

It has been said that the Constitution may be inconvenient, but it is meant to be, Madam Speaker. War is a serious matter, and Presidents and Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war.

Madam Speaker, every Member of this body, every elected official in the United States, every member of our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not take an oath to the President of the United States.

The war in Libya is the President's war. The Constitution requires that Congress declare war. The War Powers declaration requires that Congress be authorized and notified if the President leads us into war. This has not occurred. The President's war in the name of humanity, although it may be a good idea in the moral sense and Qadhafi is a rotten person, violates the Constitution of the United States. It violates statutory law that we have passed.

It is incumbent upon this body to stop the war in Libya. That is the President's war and not the war of the people of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, while Washington lives on in ignorant bliss regarding immigration, the American border remains wide open for the good, the bad, and the ugly. Often, outlaws that enter our country illegally are criminals with no respect for the law of any nation.

This past Sunday, hours before the crack of dawn, twice-deported illegal Johoan Rodriguez drove through a police barricade and ran over and killed Houston Police Officer Kevin Will while he was working an accident scene.

Rodriguez's immigration status was far from the only crime he committed that day. Rodriguez, a purported member of the MS-13 gang, was driving three times the legal limit drunk and was charged with driving while intoxicated, possession of cocaine, evading arrest, and manslaughter. The crime was so violent that Officer Will's body was dragged down the road before the killer stopped and was apprehended.

Deportation is no deterrent to criminals like Rodriguez, because as long as our border remains wide open in both directions, criminals will simply return to the United States and kill Americans. Meanwhile, Officer Will will be buried today.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the more we learn about Pakistan, the more they sound like the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of countries we call allies. First, it was Osama bin Laden, the world's number one outlaw, living comfortably in a mansion in Pakistan for years, but Pakistan claims no knowledge of that.

Now, a reporter in Pakistan, Syed Saleem Shahzad, has been murdered. He has been critical of the Pakistani Government. He reported that the naval base in Karachi that was attacked was done so by al Qaeda members of the Navy of Pakistan. Human Rights Watch says Shahzad was assassinated by members of the Pakistan intelligence agency, who previously had threatened him.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is chumming up to the Chinese. Sounds like Pakistan is playing both sides in the war on terror. Seven in 10 Americans believe we need to stop or decrease foreign aid to Pakistan. We should stop foreign aid to Pakistan until we know whose side they're on. We don't need to pay them to be unfaithful. They will do it for free.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chairman.

This amendment takes $10 million from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management of DHS and moves it to the Border, Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account with the purpose of being used for border cell phone communications to help border residents disseminate border security-related information to Border Patrol and law enforcement for the protection of their lives and our border.

I appreciate the support of Congressman Altmire from Pennsylvania in this bipartisan amendment.

This amendment really is the idea of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords from Arizona. After having been to the border of Arizona with her staff, I learned firsthand the problems that not only Texas and other States but Arizona specifically has with communication when ranchers are on their property.

On March 27, 2010, rancher Bob Krentz of Arizona was murdered 20 miles north of the border from Mexico in an isolated area of Arizona. The lack of communications capability made Krentz more vulnerable than he would have been otherwise and complicated the search for the assailants. His wife believes it was in a cell phone dead zone where he was killed and that he was trying to call for help, but his cell phone would not work.

Since that time, Congresswoman Giffords has been working diligently on this issue, and I have had the opportunity to work with her on other border security issues as well as this one.

These dead zones are so common that often times border ranchers in Arizona and Texas rely on shortwave radios to communicate and call for help when they are in trouble or they see illegal crossings into their property.

The inability of the U.S. Government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border creates public safety hazards for residents of border areas and the law enforcement agents who patrol them. Many border areas are rural and lack wireless communication capabilities like phone service, and they exacerbate the border-related public safety concern.

Once again, I want to thank Congresswoman Giffords and her staff for this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

This money is necessary so that people who live in border areas can communicate with law enforcement. Cell phone service is a basic necessity for security. It is a national security issue. It is a homeland security issue, and it is a border security issue. I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has to do with enough housing for people who are illegally in this country in order to be detained and deported back to where they came from.

This past Sunday morning in Houston, Texas, police officer Kevin Will was on patrol. He was working an accident scene, talking to a witness at that accident scene, when a person comes barreling through the police barricade, in spite of the warning lights that were on top of the police cruisers.

When Kevin Will saw that the car was coming towards him, he told this witness to jump out of the way. The witness jumps out of the way, and this individual runs over and kills Officer Kevin Will. He was charged with evading arrest, he was charged with possession of cocaine, and he was charged with intoxication manslaughter of a police officer, and he was in this country illegally. He had previously been deported twice.

The district attorney's office said this individual is a member of the MS-13 gang, and now he is still in the United States committing crimes.

There are not enough places to house these people like this criminal after they serve their time and house them so that they can be deported back where they came from.

What this bill does is allocate more money for detention beds so that we can detain these people while we are awaiting to deport them back where they came from so that we can have a safer community, so that these people aren't running loose somewhere in the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would urge this amendment be adopted. What it does is provide more space so that we can detain people and deport them back where they came from.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, Federal public lands have become the chosen path for drug smugglers and illegals entering our United States of America. The Government Accountability Office has confirmed that certain environmental laws, such as the Wilderness Act and Endangered Species Act, limit the Border Patrol's access and expose great areas of the border to significant environmental damage due to the illegal traffic coming into the United States.

In certain areas, Border Patrol agents are limited to patrolling on foot or on horseback even if the drug runners have ATVs, 4x4 trucks, or even Humvees.

A recent GAO report revealed that the Department of the Interior is taking months to approve simple permits that are necessary for the Border Patrol to do its job to protect the border. The GAO report also revealed that some permits are never granted at all.

When permits are given to the Border Patrol for such things as placing monitor equipment, the Department of the Interior negotiates mitigation packages with the Border Patrol. But these mitigation packages are forcing the Border Patrol to fork over money for environmental activities. The obvious is being missed by the Department of the Interior that the illegal activity itself destroys the environment they are trying to preserve.

I recommend adoption of the Lummis amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, it has recently come to light that, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security granted deferred action to over 12,000 illegal aliens in FY 2010. ``Deferred action'' is a technical term which means that a person is subject to deportation but that our Federal Government, the administration, decides not to deport them at all, calling it ``deferred action.''

This number is a dramatic increase from previous years. It's much higher than the less than 900 number that was recently quoted by Secretary Napolitano in testimony during a Senate Judiciary hearing. These numbers also seem to drastically contradict statements made by the administration that deferred action would not be used to provide a backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.

In short, deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and that discretion is not to pursue removal from the United States of a particular individual for a specific period of time. It is only intended to be used on very special occasions; but now over 12,000 people a year are given this deferred action.

Our broken immigration system in this country continues to allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in each year. Increasingly, deferred action is being used as an easy way for the Federal Government to avoid enforcing the law for people who are arrested and caught in the United States illegally. Quite simply, it is illegal to be in this country without permission, and it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce the immigration laws of this country at all times, not to pick and choose when to enforce certain laws, especially immigration laws.

This amendment states that no money from this bill can be used to grant deferred action or parole to an illegal in the United States for any other reason than a case-by-case basis for one of two reasons: one, urgent humanitarian reasons or, two, significant public benefit.

Bottom line, this amendment prevents the administration from going around Congress and the will of the American people by granting administrative amnesty called ``deferred action.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Chair, I wish to be heard.

Madam Chair, this is the amendment that I mentioned to the majority that I was going to introduce at this time, and it is in order because it is No. 9, which was stated to me by the Clerk as No. 9. So it is in order.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The

title of the amendment is Sanctuary Cities amendment. I have it as No. 10.

I would like the amendment read.

Madam Chair, over the past years, the number of aliens who unlawfully reside in the United States has grown significantly, from an estimated 3 million in 1986, to about 11 million in 2005; and some put those estimates today in 2010 at 20 million.

It is estimated that 400,000 illegal immigrants entered our country last year. Even modest estimates put the cost of illegal immigration to just the Federal Government at over $29 billion each year. That is roughly the annual budget for the entire Department of Justice, and we cannot afford to have this continue.

Some jurisdictions have assisted Federal authorities in apprehending and detaining unauthorized aliens pursuant to agreements called the 287(g) agreements, with Federal immigration authorities enabling respective State or local law enforcement agencies to carry out various immigration enforcement functions, and I commend these jurisdictions.

However, there are some jurisdictions that continue to mandate that their employees not communicate with ICE when they come across someone that is in the country illegally. These jurisdictions are known as sanctuary cities and are located throughout the United States. This practice is against the law, and it is in violation of current law which is 8 U.S.C. 1373.

However, despite the law, many cities and localities still place these restrictions on law enforcement officers and other employees. 8 U.S.C. 1373 states: notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now called ICE, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

Once again, Madam Chair, this is current U.S. Federal law. This amendment is simple. It says that no funds from this act can be used to contradict current U.S. law, which I just read.

This amendment should pass unanimously because it already is against the law for cities and other jurisdictions to prevent law enforcement officers and other employees from sharing information with ICE. All this amendment is doing is saying that no money from this act can go to support an already illegal activity. It is a commonsense amendment. I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, what is taking place is under the guise of granting deferred action. Deferred action is a procedure, an administrative procedure by the administration that is used when a person is detained who is illegally in the United States and the action to deport that individual is deferred to some unknown date. The person is released, and what occurs is that person is never deported and never has a hearing.

This procedure started years ago with a few hundred people a year. But last year, in 2010, over 12,000 people had their immigration deportation hearings deferred to an unknown date, and what occurred was they were released and their action against them will never be taken. Some call this a form of amnesty, administrative amnesty. You can call it whatever you want, but those people stay in the United States.

What this amendment does is prohibit the administration from using, under the guise of deferred action, this procedure to not have hearings on individuals, which allows them to end up staying in the United States. And no funds can be used to implement the verdict action except in two cases: One is under humanitarian reasons, and the second would be some significant public benefit to the United States. Otherwise, no deferred action, no get-out-of-jail-free card for people on a discriminatory basis done by the administration or any of its agencies.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between the law and the lawless. They go forward each day to protect the people and risk their own lives doing so.

Very early Sunday morning, one of Houston's finest, Officer Kevin Will, was investigating a hit-and-run accident when he was run over and killed by a speeding vehicle that had blazed past police barriers. Immediately before being struck, Officer Will yelled for an accident witness to jump out of the way, thus saving the citizen's life just before the officer's life was stolen from him.

Officer Will was 38 years of age and had been a Houston police officer 2 years. He leaves behind a pregnant wife and two step- children.

The driver of the speeding vehicle ignored the safety lights of police cruisers at the accident scene. He was drunk, charged with intoxication, manslaughter of a police officer, evading arrest, and possession of cocaine. The accused killer was in the United States illegally, having been deported at least once before returning to become one of the lawless.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 12, line 6, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, last week was National Police Week honoring the service and sacrifice of U.S. law enforcement, especially those that paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Every day peace officers put themselves in harm's way to protect the citizens of this great country.

Peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between good and evil.

They are what separate us from the anarchy of the lawless.

They are real life heroes in our midst.

One of these heroes is Officer Timothy Abernethy who lived and died serving the people of Texas and the City of Houston.

Fighting crime was a personal calling for Timothy, not just an occupation.

Officer Abernethy worked hard to protect the citizens of Houston, working overtime, all while earning a degree, and providing for his family.

He was killed in the line of duty, defending his community, in 2008.

We reflect on the sacrifice of Officer Abernethy, as well as other fallen peace officers, not only during National Police Week, but every day.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was National Missing Children's Day, a reminder that although progress has been made, child protection must remain a national priority.

Each day, in the United States, more than 2,185 children are reported missing and approximately 800,000 children are reported missing each year.

This past April marked one year since Ali Lowitzer of Spring, Texas went missing.

Ali's plans were to ride the school bus and go straight to work after school at the local burger shop.

She did not come home after work though, and Mrs. Lowitzer put in a call to the police when she could not get in touch with her daughter.

The search began soon after and continues today.

We cannot give up hope and must continue to be vigilant to guard our children and bring Ali and all other missing children back home.

Congress has passed significant laws to keep children safe, but must always be looking to what we can do to further ensure the security of the most innocent.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, while Congress was in recess, the Republic of Turkey and Friends of Turkey commemorated the 92nd anniversary of the launching of Turkey's national campaign to establish an independent nation by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Turkey also celebrates May 19 as the birthday of Ataturk.

During his life time Ataturk was able to lift a country from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and build a secular democratic nation located at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East. His reforms were widespread including political, social, legal, educational, and economic. Some were monumental such as abolishing the caliphate and the sultan, recognizing equal rights for men and women, adopting a new alphabet and adopting secular law. Ataturk had a vision for the country, one of a pro-western secular and democratic state in which the rule of law would prevail. He swiftly but steadily advanced toward that goal with the confidence of a born leader and the support of the Turkish nation.

Ataturk championed women's rights, and believed that education and scientific training was the key to advancement not only for the individual, but also for the country. During his tenure, women were encouraged to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, and enter into politics.

The legacy of Ataturk is even more evident today, as the Arab Spring leads to dramatic changes in the Middle East and North Africa. There are lessons in Turkey's history which can be applied to the current situation around the world. With the right leadership and determination, democracy can take root and lay the foundations for a prosperous future in the region.