Floor Statements

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, the administration's knee-jerk banning of deepwater drilling for 6 months is the second disaster in the gulf.

The government is intentionally putting companies out of business in the gulf with this unscientific moratorium. There are 50,000 workers who are losing their jobs due to government overreaction. The administration is not only purposely putting blue collar workers out of work; the government is sending those jobs to Brazil and to Indonesia.

In 2005, there was a BP refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas. Fifteen people were killed; 180 were injured. The government did not close all of the refineries for 6 months in the United States to investigate the sins of BP then. That would have been foolish nonsense. It would have destroyed jobs, the economy, and it would have caused the loss of U.S. energy.

So investigate the rig explosion and hold BP accountable for their conduct, but don't in a moment of political hysteria stop deepwater drilling. Don't wipe out jobs, American companies, and sabotage the U.S. economy.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Israel has the absolute right to defend itself. It is under siege. In the north, it has the terrorist group Hezbollah; in the south, it has the terrorist group Hamas, both firing missiles into that Nation. Recently, six ships tried to break a blockade going into Gaza. Israel defends its borders and searches ships to make sure that aid going to Gaza is not from Iran and it is not weapons.

But this was not humanitarian aid workers that assaulted the Israeli commandos, where 10 of them were hurt. It turns out that their goal was, of course, to have an international incident. The reason being, after these ships were stopped and then allowed to proceed into Gaza, the humanitarian aid was denied and refused by Hamas. Obviously, an international incident that had gone bad for Hamas.

Recently, myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), along with 128 Members of Congress have tried to make it clear to the White House that the United States should stand with our ally Israel, that we should make it clear to Israel, to America, and the rest of the world that Israel has the absolute right to defend itself in this situation and support the blockade and support their actions of the flotilla. This should be clear to all concerned throughout the world, especially Hamas and Hezbollah.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, there was no plan to handle that disaster. The Federal Government was missing in action. Now the Feds have a moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling.

The administration plan, based upon President Obama's speech last night, can be summed up quite well in the Los Angeles Times, and I quote, ``Obama's speech: There is a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the gulf, so let's build more windmills.'' Yes, Madam Speaker, that seems to be the plan of the administration: Close down deepwater drilling and maybe build windmills.

Why would we shut down this industry in the Gulf of Mexico? And what is the purpose of this plan? The moratorium is preventing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for the next 6 months or even longer. When we have a plane crash, Madam Speaker, when people die, and that's a horrible thing, we don't close down the entire airline industry for 6 months. That wouldn't make sense.

But shutting down the offshore drilling for 6 months or more is going to be the second disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. And it's expanding the economic destruction caused by this explosion and this oil spill. It will put 50,000 people or more out of work in the entire gulf region. It affects my State of Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi the most.

It's interesting. Although the oil spill affects Louisiana and Mississippi, Alabama, these are the States, along with Texas, who want to continue deepwater drilling because they know it's necessary for jobs, the economy, and making sure that America is independent of foreign oil.

What is the reason for putting these workers out of business? Why has the Federal Government seen fit to eliminate these jobs? Actions have consequences, and in this case, inaction also has its consequences.

Seventeen percent of the Nation's domestic crude oil comes from deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Now where is the country to obtain energy for the loss of this oil? There is no plan, no answer from the administration about this question. A 6-month moratorium will in effect send these expensive rigs to Brazil and Indonesia. It costs about $500,000 a day to operate one of these deepwater offshore drilling rigs.

These rigs are not going to sit there and wait for the Federal Government to make a decision, and just like what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with the American manufacturing industry, when it left America, it has never returned. And these oil rigs in the deepwater, when they leave American waters, they will not return ever. They will find some other safe haven to drill for crude oil.

The loss of our domestic source of oil in the Gulf of Mexico will make us further dependent on foreign oil. It means the United States will now have to import more oil from countries that don't like us, like the Middle East, like those good friends in Venezuela. It will increase the cost to all Americans, and that will increase tanker traffic bringing oil through the Gulf of Mexico. There is a greater risk from leakage of oil tankers than there is from any leakage from an offshore rig, but we will have to bring in at least 300 more tankers just to make up the 17 percent difference, and those tankers, of course, will bring foreign oil, not American oil, to the United States. We need to tap our own domestic sources of oil.

It took 37 days for there to be an attempt to have the top-kill procedure. Why did it take so long to make this decision? We're still looking for the answer to that question.

The majority of the pollution, Madam Speaker, is not the result of the explosion itself but the delay in handling the explosion and the containment thereof. In other words, there was no plan to contain the oil for at least 37 days, and then it was too late to try to contain the oil near the rig.

Now the government is overreacting by saying our solution to the explosion, to the containment, to the pollution is: stop deepwater drilling, kill American jobs, kill the American energy industry. And that will have a disastrous effect on our country.

We do need a plan for future disasters to include, who is in charge of this leak? Who is in charge of the containment? Who is in charge of the cleanup? And the only plan we have today is to shut down deepwater drilling, and now the administration is using this as a political ploy to implement more taxes on the American energy industry which will be called the cap-and-trade national energy tax. Of course, that is passed on to the American citizens.

So a new crippling natural energy tax will result in regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, the very substance we as humans exhale, and it's unfortunate that the moratorium on the drilling has already caused devastating economy losses in the Gulf of Mexico, especially in my State.

So we would ask that the Federal Government rescind its ban and allow deepwater drilling in a safe manner.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, free speech is under assault from Islamic terrorists worldwide. They use threats and political correctness to silence anybody who speaks out about their violent beliefs. Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders made a movie about these Islamic clerics who incite violence in the name of religion. But the Dutch Government is putting Wilders on trial for incitement to hatred. The oppressive Dutch Government says it's irrelevant that the speech in the movie may be true.

You see, there is no freedom of speech in the Netherlands if a person is critical of radical Islam. Freedom of speech is a basic human right. Political speech and religious speech are the most controversial types of all speech. That is why these types of speech should be protected the most. Benjamin Franklin said, ``There can be no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.'' Geert Wilders is a champion of the public liberty and the free speech that guarantees that liberty.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Israel actually believes in and secures

its border from criminals, terrorists and anyone else trying to illegally sneak into Israel for any purpose. Israel doesn't allow ships to go into the terrorist-run area of Gaza without first being searched for contraband.

However, in light of the recent unsuccessful attempt of six ships to run the Israeli blockade into Hamas-controlled Gaza and in an apparent attempt to placate the Palestinians, the White House is giving Israel advice on border security. ``Don't be so tough,'' seems to be the message. If Israel followed America's border security plan, they would be crippled by terrorist attacks. If Israel followed America's border security plan, they would be overrun by rock-throwing illegals, drug smugglers, human traffickers, and increased border violence. Anyway, it's none of our business what Israel does. And who are we to give advice?

America needs to be more concerned about our own disastrous border security than giving anyone else bad advice about their border security.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is missing in action on American border security. Our ineffective border security plan seems to be one of compassionate disinterest or catch them if you can.

Last week there was not another violent incident at the border near El Paso, Texas. This time a lone Border Patrol agent spotted a group of Mexican nationals crossing the border illegally. The agent was able to apprehend one of the illegals, but four illegals began assaulting the sole law enforcement officer with rocks. His life was in danger, and he defended himself. One of the assailants was killed, however; an assailant with a long criminal history of smuggling.

Our law enforcement agents have the moral and legal right to defend themselves, and they have the right to defend the American border.

The Mexican military showed up at the scene, however. They pointed their rifles at the American law enforcement agents. So what did they do? Did they stand their ground? Did they protect the sovereignty of the United States of America? No. Our Border Patrol agents retreated. They fled. And why? Because the Federal Government doesn't back up the Border Patrol.

The government hangs them out to dry. Just ask Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. Washington only gives lip service to securing the border. The government tells our Border Patrol to go down there on the border and kind of pretend to enforce the law. They don't receive the support they need to secure the border. They don't get the necessary manpower or the necessary equipment. They don't receive the necessary moral support from the government. The government doesn't back up their right to protect themselves when their lives are in danger. The Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, is missing in action.

But right on cue, Mexican President Calderon arrogantly demanded an apology for the shooting. But Calderon didn't apologize for the shooting of Robert Krentz, the Arizona rancher who was murdered in America on his own property by a Mexican criminal alien.

Calderon didn't apologize for the execution-style murder of Border Patrol agent Robert Rosas in Campo, California. Calderon didn't apologize when Senior Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was murdered in America, run down and run over by a Mexican narcoterrorist drug smuggler in a Humvee.

Where's Calderon's outrage over the Americans being killed all the time in America by illegals from Mexico? Where's Calderon's apology for the criminal alien murderer of Houston Police Officer Rodney Johnson? Officer Johnson was a 12-year veteran of the Houston police force. He was married, had five kids, and Officer Johnson was shot four times execution-style by a Mexican illegal with a criminal record when he was stopped for speeding.

Where was Calderon when Houston Police Officer Gary Gryder was killed by an illegal in 2008? Or when Houston Police Officer Henry Canales was murdered by an illegal just last year? Americans are frequently killed in America by Mexican illegals. And why doesn't our government demand an apology about these homicides? Why doesn't our government demand compensation from Mexico for the homicides their illegals commit in the United States?

And where's the State Department? Where's the outrage, the concern when it's an American that loses their life, cost their lives by the actions of illegals from Mexico? Where's that demand for an apology? And where's the administration? Missing in action, that's where.

Where's your outrage, Mr. President? The President should be on the American side of the border, doing what's best for America. And why don't we protect our own? How hard would it be for the President of the United States just to say, Don't cross the American border without permission? Why doesn't he say that? Doesn't he believe those words?

Mexican criminals think they can come over here and do as they please and nobody's going to really do anything about it. And they're right. Did we send our Attorney General out to demand answers when Border Patrol agent Rosas was shot execution-style last year? Where was the Attorney General? Missing in action.

And American citizens and peace officers are losing their lives because the government is missing in action. Seems like our government is more interested in what Mr. Calderon thinks than the American people. Mr. Calderon should take care of his own lawless country and Mr. Obama should take care of our borders. The administration, this administration, is not the first to be ineffective in border security, but it certainly should be the last.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Israelis check cargo for hidden weapons that is shipped into Gaza. Last week, six ships ran the security blockade and were boarded. People on one ship attacked and stabbed the Israeli soldiers and beat them with pipes. It was seen on televisions throughout the world. Ten Israeli soldiers were injured as they defended themselves, and, of course, they have the legal and moral right of self-defense.

But the hate Israel at any price crowd denounced the Israelis, and now our administration is telling Israel they shouldn't be so security conscious. ``Back off a little on the blockades,'' the White House says. And just so we don't hurt anybody's feelings, the administration is sending $400 million to Gaza. Why? What are the Palestinians going to do with that money. Buy more rockets to shoot into Israel? Who knows.

Who are we to tell our ally, Israel, how to secure its borders? We are giving advice to a country on smuggling security when we can't even keep the smuggling contraband out of our own country.

And that's just the way it is.