Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We all represent an area of the State of Texas that is dramatically impacted by the oil and gas industry. And having a district on the Gulf Coast representing about 20 percent of the Nation's oil refineries, this is an especially serious incident that has occurred offshore, this BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. No question about it, this problem, this accident has to be solved. I understand within the last hour that the cap that has now been placed on the well by BP is apparently working. Hopefully, it will be working long enough for them to finish drilling the other two wells to solve this problem.

And we always must be mindful of the people that were killed in this tragedy, plus the tremendous damage it has done to certain parts of our environment. But we cannot allow this accident to be an overreaction. And I think the Federal Government has overreacted in this situation.

The deep water in the Gulf of Mexico provides 17.3 percent of the Nation's domestic crude oil, and the Federal Government now has said, No more deepwater drilling until 6 months or when we get back with you. Now, no industry, whether it's a doughnut shop or the oil and gas industry or anybody else, can be shut down for 6 months by the Federal Government and expect to survive.

And these deepwater rigs are not cheap endeavors. They cost $500,000 a day to drill in the deep water. They're not going to wait 6 months for the Federal Government to make its decision whether they can continue to drill or not. That's why some of them have already left the deep water and gone to friendlier waters where those governments aren't quite as oppressive and prevent deepwater drilling.

Those people who work offshore in the deep water now are unemployed thanks to the Federal Government. It's an overreaction. Now, all of a sudden, 17.3 percent of the Nation's crude oil is gone out of the deep water. To make up for just what is now going to be eliminated in the deep water, it will take 300 tankers a year coming in from those countries in the Middle East to supply or resupply just the difference in the crude oil that we will not obtain from the deep water. And of course those tankers, some of them have had problems of containing that crude oil that is coming all the way from the Middle East. Once again, now we are paying and sending American money overseas, sending jobs somewhere off the coast of Brazil, Africa, and Egypt, and yet it is, in my opinion, an overreaction.

I will give you an example. In 2005, in Texas City, Texas, very near our districts, we had a BP explosion at a refinery. People were killed. In fact, more people were killed then and injured than in this explosion offshore, but we didn't close all of the refineries in the United States. We closed BP's refinery until we found out what the problem was and made sure that they were held accountable for what they did. But we didn't overreact.

I got a letter from a Cajun fellow, a real mad Cajun, from Houma, Louisiana. The Cajun community, as you know, Mr. Brady, they border our State. We have a lot of Cajuns in our southeast Texas. They come from Louisiana and ours go over there. Anyway, a lot of them work in the oil and gas industry. I want to read a portion of his letter. He wrote it to the President, but I got a copy of it as well. He runs an offshore drilling related business, and here's what he 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. Did you shut down the mortgage companies, the banks, and the auto industry after they stole money from those same Americans that invested in them? No. You bailed them out. 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,'' such as for Timmy Bergeron.

I won't read the rest of the letter. It gets a little more colorful. But it's important that we understand these are real people that are losing their jobs because of this decision.

A Federal judge has said that the Federal Government's decision to stop or to issue a moratorium to stop deepwater drilling--and I quote the Federal judge in issuing an injunction, saying this injunction was wrong. The Federal judge said that the government's decision to stop deepwater drilling was ``arbitrary,'' it was ``capricious,'' it was ``unfounded,'' and it was ``punitive''--pretty strong words--because the government couldn't show evidence that stopping the deepwater drilling was necessary because of the accident with BP.

So the Federal Government is still suing the Americans, went and appealed this decision. A three-judge panel ruled that that decision would be upheld. The final decision will be in August. But the Federal Government has had its way because continuing to fight Americans in the courtrooms, prolonging the ultimate decision that will be made by the appellate courts on whether the injunction should be granted to stop the Federal Government's moratorium or not, is such a delay that more of those deepwater rigs will leave.

The people are still unemployed. They need jobs. They want to work offshore. And most of the people in this country, 73 percent of the Nation's population, think we should still continue to drill in the deep water, even in spite of this horrible accident, solve this problem, and allow Americans to continue to work.

With that, I yield back to my friend from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you know, Mr. Brady, Port Arthur, especially Port Arthur, Texas, is a refinery town; but it has high unemployment. The whole area has high unemployment for a lot of reasons. One reason, of course, is we've been hit by numerous hurricanes. Just since I've been in office, we've had Katrina, Rita, Hubert, Gustav and Ike all come through my congressional district and your congressional district. Because of that, it's affected the economy. And now these workers are trying to get back to work. Many of them work offshore, and then they work onshore in oil- related industries.

But the effect of the shutdown in the deep water causes economic hardship, not just on the workers on those platforms, but for the people on shore that supply parts and maintenance and other industries, other commodities to those people who work offshore. And so we don't know yet how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost because of this.

But one thing that we also need to understand is the loss of energy, the lack of having crude oil that we were producing in the deep water; 17 percent of the Nation's domestic crude oil production comes from deep water. That is now going to be gone, and we'll have to make that up some other way. So we should expect gasoline prices to rise, probably in 2 years, maybe less because of that.

And I think it's imperative that we understand that the folks that are affected want to continue to work. They want to continue to work offshore. They want to continue to work safely. And they don't want the Federal Government putting them out of work. And that's exactly what happened. The Federal Government has shut them down, has sent their jobs overseas.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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