Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and a heavy heart that I speak today of a young marine from my district in Texas who gave his life while fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Marine Sergeant Brandon Bury was killed on Sunday, June 6 during combat operations in Kabul. This is a photograph of this marvelous marine. He leaves behind his wife, Heather, and his two young sons, Cole, who is 3-years-old, and Cade, who is 1.

Brandon was on his third tour of duty. He previously served two deployments in Iraq, and he left for Afghanistan this April as part of a team training Afghan police.

He was 26 years of age and a 2002 graduate of Kingwood High School in Texas. In his 26 short years, Brandon lived a lifetime of service to other people.

I talked to Brandon's mom, Terri, this week. She told me that Brandon had just called her, and he had asked her to send him gifts for the local Afghanistan children in his next care package. Brandon, always thinking about ways to do something for somebody else.

I have been to Afghanistan and, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, those Afghani kids love American warriors. They love our troops, and I have

seen how they react to those troops firsthand.

Marines like Brandon are the reason why. They are the best ambassadors for liberty and freedom that there are in the world because, you see, Americans never go to conquer. They go to liberate. They go to lands they have never seen, and they fight for people they have never known.

Brandon's mom and dad, Terri and Bryan Bury, now live in Dallas, Texas, with his two brothers. I met Brandon 2 years ago at a 4th of July celebration in Kingwood. He stood 6 foot 6 and he was all marine. He was an impressive individual, and his friends say even back in middle school Brandon knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to be a United States marine.

He volunteered for the Marine Corps. He could have been an officer, but he wanted to be an enlisted man so he could be on the ground with other such marines.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a U.S. marine. They go into the desert of the gun and the valley of the sun. They go where others fear to tread and the timid are not found.

These young warriors make great sacrifices today in the heat and the dust and the deserts and the rough, rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They track down those terrorists wherever they try to hide.

There have been 10 Texas warriors killed this year in Afghanistan, four from the Houston area. In our congressional district in Texas, there have been a total of 29 warriors killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It has been said that wars may be fought by weapons, but they are won by warriors. Brandon Bury was an American warrior. He was a hero in the tradition of our great men and women who defend the flag and liberty. It is America's warriors who pay the price for our freedom.

In America's first war fighting for freedom, Patrick Henry said, ``The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, and to the brave.'' We are fortunate that these words still ring true today and that Americans like Brandon carry those values into battle.

While we mourn the loss of Brandon Bury, we should thank God that a man like him ever lived.

Killed with Sergeant Bury were Lance Corporal Derek Hernandez, 20, of Edinburg, Texas, and Corporal Donald Marler, 22, from St. Louis, part of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton. These proud, young warriors were killed on the 66th anniversary of the D-day invasion of Europe.

Shakespeare wrote about such men in Henry V, when he said, ``From this day to the ending of the world, we in it 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.''

Mr. Speaker, we shall always remember Brandon and his fellow marine brothers and the lives they gave for freedom. So today I extend my prayers and condolences to Brandon's wife and two young boys, and his parents, his relatives, and his friends in the Kingwood community.

Mr. Speaker, when a warrior goes off to faraway lands, the family stands vigilant at home because they, too, have really gone off to war.

Brandon was a marine. He was the poster boy for what is best about America.

Where does America get such amazing breed, this rare breed like Brandon Bury? Mr. Speaker, there is nothing quite like a marine. It was said best by an Army general when he said there are only two groups that understand marines--marines and the enemy.

So Semper Fi, Brandon Bury, Semper Fi.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Sara Carter, at the Washington Examiner, reports the Mexican Government is opening up a satellite consular office on Catalina Island in California. It will be housed at the island's country club. Catalina Bay is a postcard picture of the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but the island has a long history of drug smuggling and human trafficking.

The consular's office is not there to help people come to the U.S. legally. Instead, the Mexican Government is giving out I.D. cards, called matricula cards, to illegals. These cards are used by illegals in the United States to get credit, to open bank accounts and--get this--to receive federally funded housing on the island.

The Mexican Government is an accomplice to the unlawful entry by these illegals. As further evidence of the willful arrogance of Mexico to violate and to ignore U.S. immigration laws, ICE officers said Mexican officials asked them to temporarily halt the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws on the island.

Isn't that special? Meanwhile, the invasion continues.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling will prevent drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for the next 6 months or longer.

Why do we have the moratorium? What is the purpose?

When we have a plane crash, as disastrous as that might be, we don't close down the entire airline industry for 6 months--that wouldn't make sense--but now we want to close down the drilling offshore for 6 months.

What is the reason?

The 6-month moratorium on drilling will be another economic catastrophe for the United States. Six months is a long time in the drilling business. These wells can't start and stop overnight, and neither can the support industries.

Mr. Speaker, this chart right here shows the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, and on this chart, out in the Gulf of Mexico, there are about 4,000 offshore rigs. These 4,000 rigs will not be allowed to drill, based upon the administration's moratorium, for the next 6 months. All of these yellow dots represent a drilling rig that is offshore, and they go about 75 to 150 miles off the Texas-Louisiana coast, not counting those off of Mississippi and Alabama.

Some companies are already moving workers to Brazil and to the Middle East because of this absurdity of a moratorium. Texas and Louisiana will lose an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 jobs just in this industry, not counting all the related industries that are onshore. The people who supply those rigs--the food, the transportation, communications, goods and services--all of those jobs will be gone if these rigs are not allowed to drill. The longer the uncertainty continues here in America, the worse it will get, and there is no guarantee these jobs will ever come back. That is not only a threat to our economy. It is a threat to national security.

That means the United States will now import more oil from countries that don't like us--like the Middle East and Venezuela. Now China and Russia, two of our buddies, are going to drill off the coast of Cuba with Venezuela and Vietnam.

Isn't that a lovely experience?

The loss of our domestic source of oil in the Gulf of Mexico will make us further dependent on foreign oil and will increase energy costs to all Americans, and that will also increase tanker traffic bringing that oil into the Gulf of Mexico. There have been 16 large international oil spills of over 30 million gallons, and only three of those have been from offshore drilling rigs. The rest have been from oil tankers bringing oil from one place to another. So we need to put a proactive plan in place so we can better deal with accidents in the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 9 days for the administration to make remarks about the impact of the Deepwater explosion and for DHS to declare the spill of national significance. There was no clear chain of command for who was in control of the disaster. There doesn't seem to be any plan. There should have been a plan in place immediately to respond. That's the government's responsibility. Some say it was the Coast Guard's. Others say it was the EPA's. It is still somewhat of a mystery as to who was supposed to be in charge and who was supposed to be in control of the cleanup and of the containment when the explosion occurred.

It took 37 days to attempt the top-kill procedure. Why so long? We don't know the answer yet. The majority of the pollution is a result of the delay, not of the explosion. I repeat: The majority of the pollution is the result of the delay and not of the explosion itself.

Now government is overreacting to the aftermath and making the economic impact worse by prohibiting the drilling of these other 4,000 wells. The moratorium could end up being a worse economic problem than the accident itself. It's the second disaster now in the Gulf of Mexico.

The EPA was created in 1970 to address industrial pollution, and they have somewhat of a history of overreacting and overregulating. And the bottom line is they are driving and have driven American manufacturing jobs to other countries. We cannot allow this to happen again with offshore drilling.

As much as we need to use all alternative sources of energy, right now our economy runs on fossil fuels, and that's not going to really change anytime soon. So we either have to import more oil or we have to allow these rigs to drill.

America doesn't yet run on windmills and moonbeams. We need a plan for future disasters, to include who is in charge of stopping the leak, who is in charge of containment of the oil spill, and who is in charge of the cleanup. As of today, there does not seem to be a comprehensive plan to implement.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, when Elena Kagan was dean of the Harvard Law School, for personal and biased reasons, she banned military recruiters from campus. By her actions, she violated the right of free speech--in a university setting, of all places. A college campus is just the place for free thought, free expression, free speech from all points of view.

Kagan's actions also denied the students the right to hear the information. She denied students their right

even to discuss the military career as a choice because of her own prejudices. And when Kagan personally joined a lawsuit to uphold her banishment of the military recruiters, the very Supreme Court she wants to join unanimously said she was wrong in her judgement.

Elena Kagan is hostile to the First Amendment. She wants control over free thought and free expression unless she personally agrees with it. Kagan's attack on the First Amendment shows her dangerous distrust for the principles of the Constitution. Her lack of objective judgment shows she has no business sitting in judgment on the most powerful court in the world.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the new Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury. She's never ruled on a point of law--any point of law. She has not decided even one constitutional issue. She's never tried a criminal case. She's never tried a civil case. She's never even tried a traffic case.

We don't know whether or not she believes the Constitution is the foundation of American law or whether she thinks, like many, the Constitution constantly changes based upon the personal opinions of Supreme Court Justices. But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial.

She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence.

She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation,

a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue.

She has never empaneled a jury. She has never instructed a jury on a reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary.

She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all- important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime.

She has never held a gavel in a courtroom, and she has never made any decision in the heat of a trial. She has never ruled on a life-or-death issue.

Elena Kagan has never made a judgment call from the bench--not a single one. Yet, as a Supreme Court Justice, she would be second- guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who had been through the mud, blood, and tears of actual trials in actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court Justice?

Kagan is an elitist academic who has spent most of her time out of touch with the real world and with the way things really are. Being a judge would be an exercise to the new Supreme Court nominee. She has read about being a judge in books, I suppose. She might even have played pretend in her college classroom. But she has never been a judge. She has never made a judicial decision, and her first one should not be as a member of the United States Supreme Court. She has never determined justice--not a single time. Yet she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Besides never being a judge, she has never even been a trial lawyer. She has never questioned a witness, argued a case to a jury, or tried any case to any jury anywhere in the United States. She has absolutely no courtroom trial experience as a judge or as a lawyer. Real-world experience makes a difference. Reading books about something and actually doing it are two completely different things.

People's lives and livelihoods are at stake in these courtroom decisions. Courtroom experience is fundamental to being a judge on the Supreme Court. As anyone who has been through the court system can testify, a courtroom is a whole different world.

Putting Elena Kagan on the United States Supreme Court is like putting someone in charge of a brain surgery unit who has never done an operation. She may be qualified for the classroom, but she is certainly not qualified for the courtroom. She should stay in the schoolhouse since she has never been in trial at the courthouse. We cannot put the Constitution in the hands of someone who has never had to use it in the trial of a real case in a real court of law.

Elena Kagan--unqualified justice. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is the day we remember Americans that served and did not return. Their blood has stained and sanctified the soil of every continent on Earth. They are buried in unmarked graves in far-off fields, mountains, deserts, and oceans. They brought freedom to peoples they did not know in lands they had never been.

The warrior, not the preacher, has given us freedom of religion.

The warrior, not the reporter, has given us freedom of press.

The warrior, not the lawyer, has given us the right to a fair trial.

The warrior, not the politician, has given us the right to vote.

The warrior, not the critic, has given us freedom of speech.

The warrior, not the movie personality, has given us freedom to assemble.

And the warrior, not the college professor, has given us liberty.

It is the warrior that gave his youth so we could have a future. It is the warrior who salutes the flag and serves the flag. And it's the warrior that is buried under the flag that we honor this Memorial Day, 2010.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a terrorist alert for Texas. An Islamic terrorist group from Somalia, al Shabaab, is infiltrating across our southern border.

A people-smuggling ring has been exposed through South America and hundreds of Somali illegals were given

fake identification. Many of them have ties to Islamic terrorist groups.

This is al Shabaab's Somali terrorist organization, and it's aligned with al Qaeda. Their priority is to impose Sharia Islamic law, and they have stated their intent to harm America.

In addition to the Somalis and the terrorists from Somalia coming across the border, law enforcement officials in Texas said Mexican smugglers are coaching Middle Eastern illegals. They're teaching them how to dress and look Hispanic, and they are learning how to speak Spanish.

Mr. Speaker, what is it going to take for the administration to really secure the border? The warning signs could not be clearer. We need to send sufficient National Guard groups to the border now. Until the Federal Government understands border security is a national security issue, we are going to continue to have these threats.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the administration announced they're deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. That sounds mighty good, but not so fast.

It appears troops aren't really going to the border. It seems they're sending the National Guard troops 20 miles behind the border to do computer support work. Well, we can hire a Geek Squad to do that. The National Guard troops need to be on the border and they need to be armed so they can defend themselves. And they need realistic rules of engagement.

One border patrol official said that sending unarmed National Guard troops to the border amounts to the border patrol guarding the National Guard. Our current border philosophy is to try to capture people when they cross the border. Once they've crossed, if we capture them, then we have to deal with the consequences--like deportations, prosecutions, drug gangs in our jails, et cetera. Why are we letting illegals cross in the first place?

It seems to me we need boots on the border, not 20 miles behind the border guarding computers.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, lawmen sometimes give their lives in the line of duty while protecting the rest of us. Houston, Texas, Police Officer Eydelmen Mani was one of those brave men.

On May 19, 2010, he gave his life assisting fellow police officers in chasing a criminal in a stolen car. He was 30 years of age. He left behind his wife, Monica, and a 3-year-old son, Eydelmen Mani, Jr. He grew up in Houston, Texas, and was one of 11 children. He served as a Houston police officer for just 7 years.

Officer Mani was greatly respected by his fellow peace officers, and when the Texas Medical Center used over 100 units of blood in an hour- long, valiant attempt to save Officer Mani's life, his fellow police officers stood in line and raised enough blood to replace all of the blood that was used to try to save him.

Captain Victor Rodriguez, Officer Mani's supervisor, said he was the kind of officer who didn't say a lot, but his fellow officers knew they could always count on him to be there.

Mr. Speaker, we are all able to go about our everyday lives because of officers like Eydelmen Mani. We should never take their sacrifice for granted. He was a brave and courageous peace officer. Every day, the ones who wear the badge place their lives between us and the lawless. Officer Mani was one of those lawmen. He was one of Houston's finest.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the recent explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico has raised legitimate concerns regarding safety and environmental standards of deepwater, offshore drilling. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families that lost loved ones in this tragic accident. Eleven individuals were killed.

Safety and responsible operating procedures must always come first, particularly when human lives are at risk. It is important to reevaluate and address our safety procedures and hold those responsible for the accident accountable.

At the same time, I believe the Federal Government has the obligation to make informed and responsible decisions regarding offshore drilling. We have to differentiate between the causes of this accident and other responsible and safe drilling operations.

Our primary purpose right now should be to stop the leak and determine the cause of this tragedy, and the Federal Government needs to simultaneously address the cleanup. We need the full cooperation of Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as private industry, to immediately address the cleanup and containment situation in the Gulf of Mexico.

In my opinion, there has not been sufficient urgency to do this thus far. Cleanup remains inadequate and is still bogged down in redtape from Federal bureaucrats. This bureaucratic response from Interior Secretary Salazar has been to shut down all new offshore drilling permits, including both shallow water and deepwater offshore drilling.

However, shallow water drilling is fundamentally different from deepwater drilling. It has operated safely in the Gulf of Mexico for over 60 years, yet this prohibition treats both the same. This drilling in shallow water is primarily for natural gas. The oil remaining in these reservoirs has largely been produced, so it is at lower pressure than the oil found at deeper depths. And unlike deepwater drilling, the blowout preventers in shallow water drilling are located above the surface, not thousands of feet below on the ocean floor.

I recently joined our congressional neighbor in Louisiana, Congressman Charlie Boustany, and 40 other additional colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter urging Secretary Salazar to resume permitting for the shallow water drilling.

The unintended consequences of this wide range ban are far-reaching. The blanket ban has the potential to cause

more widespread economic damage in the gulf coast and the entire United States.

The devastating effects of the oil spill go beyond waters and wetlands. For southeast Texas and southwestern Louisiana, our lives are intertwined with the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Over 180,000 Americans are directly employed in the oil and gas and mining industries along the gulf coast, and the prospect for severe economic hardship is very real. And that doesn't include the countless people that make their living in fishing and restaurant and tourism-related industries. Many of these out-of-work fishermen stand ready to help with the cleanup but are denied the ability to help because it is stalled down in Federal redtape.

I think we should have an-all-of-the-above energy policy, one that I believe we can achieve with the highest safety and environmental standards. Our Nation and our economy, however, run on fuel supplied by the oil-producing sector of the Gulf of Mexico. We cannot simply shut off the spigot and expect this Nation to run on nothing. Meanwhile, we need to clean up the mess and find out what caused this tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton said of his agency that they would ``not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials.'' Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said the government is not obligated to deport illegals captured by Arizona law enforcement.

So let's get this straight: The government doesn't adequately enforce border security laws and now won't allow Arizona to help do it either. It looks like the administration is AWOL on this national security issue.

Now, isn't that lovely? It seems like the Feds need all the help they can get. The administration keeps saying Arizona law is not the answer; comprehensive immigration reform is the answer. What that means is the administration would rather give out amnesty than secure the border.

If ICE won't answer law enforcement calls from Arizona, maybe the IRS shouldn't collect taxes from Arizona either. Give the people of Arizona their Federal taxes back and let them do the job the administration refuses to do. But we can't do that. That might make President Calderon unhappy.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton said of his agency that they would ``not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials.'' Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said the government is not obligated to deport illegals captured by Arizona law enforcement.

So let's get this straight: The government doesn't adequately enforce border security laws and now won't allow Arizona to help do it either. It looks like the administration is AWOL on this national security issue.

Now, isn't that lovely? It seems like the Feds need all the help they can get. The administration keeps saying Arizona law is not the answer; comprehensive immigration reform is the answer. What that means is the administration would rather give out amnesty than secure the border.

If ICE won't answer law enforcement calls from Arizona, maybe the IRS shouldn't collect taxes from Arizona either. Give the people of Arizona their Federal taxes back and let them do the job the administration refuses to do. But we can't do that. That might make President Calderon unhappy.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke to this House Chamber this last week as our guest, but I heard about it nonstop when I went back home to my district in Texas. My office has received hundreds of calls, almost as many as those during the health care debate. To say my constituents were not happy with Calderon's speech would be an understatement.

When I went out to get gas, go to a restaurant, or even wash my car, I got an animated earful from my neighbors. People in southeast Texas thought he was disrespectful and ungrateful to America. My friend Sammy Mahan, who owns a wrecker service, said a lot of things, some of which I cannot repeat, but he did say, ``Calderon lives in a lawless country and doesn't want the United States to enforce our laws either. It was like we invited a guest over for supper, he brought along all of his friends and his family, complained about the food, griped about our neighborhood, then drove off in our pickup truck.''

Calderon spoke in Spanish directly to the Mexican nationals in America illegally, encouraging them to keep breaking our laws so they can send money back to Mexico. Remittances from the United States are Mexico's second largest source of foreign funds. Calderon told the illegals in Spanish right here in the people's House right up here from this podium, ``I want to tell the migrant, to whom they are working here by the greatness of this country, that we admire them, that we miss them, that we are fighting for their rights, and that we are working hard for Mexico and their families.'' He came across as encouraging defiance of American law.

Exactly what rights would he be fighting for in America for the people in the United States illegally from Mexico? Would that be the so-called right to come here illegally, to work here illegally, and then send the money back to Mexico? That right doesn't exist, Mr. President. Would that be the right to illegally come to America then demand citizenship? That right doesn't exist either, Mr. President.

My constituents weren't very happy that the President of Mexico would come here as our guest, then arrogantly lecture the American people on what American laws he likes and which ones he doesn't like, then have the unmitigated nerve to blame Mexico's problems on America.

Calderon said he doesn't like our right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps if Mexico honored the second amendment philosophy of the right to defend themselves, the people of Mexico wouldn't be held hostage by the drug cartels. He blamed America for the violence in Mexico. He blamed America for illegal guns going south and illegal immigration and drugs going north. Well, I have a solution for him: Americans should just seal the border frontier. We will put the National Guard troops on the border to light up the criminal cartels. We have been protecting the borders of other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world. Our troops have been taking out the narcoterrorists worldwide. It's time we took care of business here at home because the Federal Government has been AWOL at the border.

And the people, the everyday Mexican people, are wonderful and hardworking people who love their own country, but their country is corrupt and cannot take care of them or provide them safety or jobs or an education. So the people flee to the United States. Their own country has failed the people of Mexico.

The people in Mexico are paying in blood and treasure for the lawlessness

of the drug cartels. Instead of coming to America to tell us what laws we should and should not have, why not focus on making Mexico a place that the Mexican people aren't literally dying to leave? Mexicans risk rape, robbery, murder, and a horrible death by succumbing to the harsh desert elements when they try to come here illegally and cross the border. They are at the mercy of Mexico's criminal cartels. These people risk life and limb and are literally dying to leave Mexico, their native country.

So instead of trying to Balkanize America, President Calderon should concentrate on fixing his own problems instead of continuing to make Mexico's problems America's problems. They have the resources to build a country that will keep people in Mexico so they don't have to flee. The United States cannot and should not continue to be an ATM machine for Mexico and bail them out of their problems.

President Calderon should deal with Mexico's issues and solve Mexico's economic problems, human rights problems, organized crime problems, violence problems, kidnapping problems, government corruption problems, illegal immigration problems, and the abandonment of Mexico by Mexicans before he lectures anybody about anything else.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke to this House Chamber this last week as our guest, but I heard about it nonstop when I went back home to my district in Texas. My office has received hundreds of calls, almost as many as those during the health care debate. To say my constituents were not happy with Calderon's speech would be an understatement.

When I went out to get gas, go to a restaurant, or even wash my car, I got an animated earful from my neighbors. People in southeast Texas thought he was disrespectful and ungrateful to America. My friend Sammy Mahan, who owns a wrecker service, said a lot of things, some of which I cannot repeat, but he did say, ``Calderon lives in a lawless country and doesn't want the United States to enforce our laws either. It was like we invited a guest over for supper, he brought along all of his friends and his family, complained about the food, griped about our neighborhood, then drove off in our pickup truck.''

Calderon spoke in Spanish directly to the Mexican nationals in America illegally, encouraging them to keep breaking our laws so they can send money back to Mexico. Remittances from the United States are Mexico's second largest source of foreign funds. Calderon told the illegals in Spanish right here in the people's House right up here from this podium, ``I want to tell the migrant, to whom they are working here by the greatness of this country, that we admire them, that we miss them, that we are fighting for their rights, and that we are working hard for Mexico and their families.'' He came across as encouraging defiance of American law.

Exactly what rights would he be fighting for in America for the people in the United States illegally from Mexico? Would that be the so-called right to come here illegally, to work here illegally, and then send the money back to Mexico? That right doesn't exist, Mr. President. Would that be the right to illegally come to America then demand citizenship? That right doesn't exist either, Mr. President.

My constituents weren't very happy that the President of Mexico would come here as our guest, then arrogantly lecture the American people on what American laws he likes and which ones he doesn't like, then have the unmitigated nerve to blame Mexico's problems on America.

Calderon said he doesn't like our right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps if Mexico honored the second amendment philosophy of the right to defend themselves, the people of Mexico wouldn't be held hostage by the drug cartels. He blamed America for the violence in Mexico. He blamed America for illegal guns going south and illegal immigration and drugs going north. Well, I have a solution for him: Americans should just seal the border frontier. We will put the National Guard troops on the border to light up the criminal cartels. We have been protecting the borders of other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world. Our troops have been taking out the narcoterrorists worldwide. It's time we took care of business here at home because the Federal Government has been AWOL at the border.

And the people, the everyday Mexican people, are wonderful and hardworking people who love their own country, but their country is corrupt and cannot take care of them or provide them safety or jobs or an education. So the people flee to the United States. Their own country has failed the people of Mexico.

The people in Mexico are paying in blood and treasure for the lawlessness

of the drug cartels. Instead of coming to America to tell us what laws we should and should not have, why not focus on making Mexico a place that the Mexican people aren't literally dying to leave? Mexicans risk rape, robbery, murder, and a horrible death by succumbing to the harsh desert elements when they try to come here illegally and cross the border. They are at the mercy of Mexico's criminal cartels. These people risk life and limb and are literally dying to leave Mexico, their native country.

So instead of trying to Balkanize America, President Calderon should concentrate on fixing his own problems instead of continuing to make Mexico's problems America's problems. They have the resources to build a country that will keep people in Mexico so they don't have to flee. The United States cannot and should not continue to be an ATM machine for Mexico and bail them out of their problems.

President Calderon should deal with Mexico's issues and solve Mexico's economic problems, human rights problems, organized crime problems, violence problems, kidnapping problems, government corruption problems, illegal immigration problems, and the abandonment of Mexico by Mexicans before he lectures anybody about anything else.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, in response to the BP oil spill, Secretary Salazar ordered a prohibition for the Minerals Management Service from issuing any new offshore drilling permits including both shallow water and deep water offshore drilling. While it is important to fully determine the cause of any accident of this magnitude, and learn from the mistakes, the unintended consequences of this wide ranging ruling are far reaching. I believe that a ban on new permits for both shallow water and deepwater drilling is an overreaction that has the potential to cause widespread economic damage to the Gulf Coast.

Shallow water drilling is fundamentally different from deep water drilling, and has operated in the Gulf safely for 60 years. First of all, drilling in shallow waters is primarily for natural gas. The oil remaining in these reservoirs has been largely produced, so it is at lower pressures then the oil found at deeper depths. Second, the blowout preventers in shallow water drilling are located above the sea surface, as opposed to the sea floor with deep water drilling. So, most of the problems we have seen with the blowout preventer in the BP spill would not be present in shallow water drilling.

Additionally, water temperatures are warmer in shallow water, and relief wells can be drilled much quicker and easier than in deeper water. The bottom line is that shallow water and deep water drilling are fundamentally different--yet this prohibition treats them the same.

For these reasons, I believe the Secretary of the Interior should allow new drilling permits to be issued for shallow water drilling in the Gulf immediately. Swift action is imperative, as up to 50 drilling rigs will complete wells in the next six weeks and will be unable to accept new work as long as the current ban on new permits is in effect. Additionally, shallow water drilling wells operate on a much shorter time frame for permitting then deep water wells, sometimes as little as 30-60 days. Therefore, it will be the shallow water drilling that is the most adversely affected in the short term by this ban on new permitting.

With over 180,000 Americans directly employed in the oil and gas and mining industries along the Gulf Coast, the prospect for severe economic hardship is very real. This hardship will only be compounded by the already high unemployment rates found along the Gulf Coast and throughout our country. In Port Arthur, Texas, unemployment is hovering around 15 percent.

Additionally, offshore crude production accounts for around 30 percent of total U.S. crude oil production, so it is vital to our energy supply that safe offshore drilling resume as quickly as possible. We cannot afford to give up a source of domestic energy and American jobs at this time. I urge Secretary Salazar to immediately lift the ban on new permitting for shallow water drilling.

And that's just the way it is.