Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Given the ongoing economic downturn in this country, patent fee collections at the Patent and Trademark Office are running short, based on earlier estimates. If things do not improve, the agency must initiate furloughs of its staff in the fall, an outcome that no one wants.

Aside from affecting the individual workers, mostly examiners, these furloughs would create another setback in the effort to reduce application backlogs and expedite the processing of new applications.

The agency has already reduced its operating plan for fiscal year 2009 by $120 million and is pursuing another $125 million in cuts. But the PTO cannot accurately estimate at this time how much additional revenue it needs to survive through this fiscal year. H.R. 3114 responds to this crisis by allowing the director to shift necessary funds from the trademark ledger to patent operations through June 30, 2010, less than 1 year from now.

The bill also requires the Patent Office to reimburse the Trademark Office for any funds reassigned to it within the CBO's 5-year scoring window. The bill also is an appropriate legislative response because trademark operations currently have a projected surplus of $60 million to $70 million.

In addition, there is precedence for allowing such an intra-agency revenue transfer. Twice in the past 10 years, the Trademark Office borrowed more than $24 million from patent operations. This is an unfortunate but necessary response to a funding crisis at an agency that is crucial to the economic vitality of this country.

American IP industries now account for over half of all U.S. exports and 40 percent of our economic growth. These industries provide millions of jobs for Americans with high-paying salaries. Patents encourage innovation and provide incentives to create, build, and market new products.

Delays in obtaining patents stifle entrepreneurship in our country. We want new ideas, new technologies, and new patents. America has always been the Nation of great inventors. Now we must protect those inventors and their inventions with timely patents.

Mr. Speaker, this bill won't cure all that ails the Patent and Trademark Office long term. For that we need the other body to confirm the new PTO director who will work with Congress to implement fundamental change to the agency; but failure to enact H.R. 3114 at this time will place PTO in an even deeper hole that jeopardizes agency jobs, harms the interests of inventors, and damages a crucial component of our national economy.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3114.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, a critically ill baby was born in Canada just last month. Her name is Ava Isabella Stinson. She was born 13 weeks premature and weighed only 2 pounds. Unfortunately, Canada rations health care. And since the government must grant permission for one to have health care access, Ava was unable to get the treatment she needed to survive.

Shortages and rationing under a government system means waiting lists. There was no room at the government hospitals for special needs babies. Not in the entire province of Ontario, Canada. Little Ava had no time to be on a waiting list.

Fortunately for her, Ava's parents were able to quickly transport her to Buffalo, New York. Little Ava's life was saved by the best doctors in the world right here in America.

News reports say that the neonatal intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada, is closed to new patients half of the time. Half of the time, Madam Speaker. That doesn't happen in the United States. A case like Ava's is not unusual in Canada. Babies with special needs, like being born early, are usually sent to America for care.

Autumn, Brooke, Calissa, and Dahlia Jepps were born in America to Canadian parents back in 2007. The girls are doing just fine now. They are an extremely rare set of identical quadruplets. There was no room for them in any neonatal facility in all of Canada. Their parents flew to Great Falls, Montana, from Calgary so they could be born safely in America. Think about that for a minute. Great Falls, Montana, a city of 56,000 people, offers better access to health care than Calgary, a city of over a million people. Why? Government rationing in Canada.

Government control of health care means less access to health care, unless you are on the government special favorites list. Anyone who has tried to find a doctor or a specialist who uses Medicare knows exactly what that's like.

Bureaucrats try to tell us that more babies survive under government- run health care. They cite higher infant mortality rates in other countries as proof. But these countries skew the statistics. Babies born in some countries are considered stillborn unless they survive longer than 24 hours. You see, they don't count. In Canada, if a baby weighs less than 500 grams when born, that's about a pound, and the baby doesn't survive, they don't count it as a baby. The government calls these babies ``unsalvageable.'' Not able to be saved. ``Unsalvageable.'' What a word.

There's a lot of truth in the use of that word because under a government-run health care system, these babies just aren't worth saving. They are expendable. But they are saved in America. At least for now.

Madam Speaker, the health care debate in America is literally a matter of life and death. It's not about improving quality. America's health care system offers the best quality in the world. That's why everybody comes here.

But when the government runs a health care system, it's all about how much it costs and who the special favorites of government are. Also, government-run health care doesn't pay the doctors or nurses enough to stay in business. That means health care is rationed because there aren't enough doctors to go around. Government then decides who gets treatment and who just loses out. Like the medical ethics expert in Britain I talked about earlier today. She is a government decisionmaker, and she says some of the elderly just have a duty to die. In Canada the government lets special needs babies born early just die because they apparently aren't worth the cost of saving. So now the elderly and certain babies are not important enough to be saved under socialized medicine.

In a government-run system, the government decides who gets treatment in medicine and who doesn't. That means

the government decides who lives, who dies.

The government does not have the moral right to make those decisions. Not one of the politicians who want to force America into a government- run health care boondoggle is going to be denied treatment or medicine. Not one of them. Like the book ``Animal Farm'', which had the philosophy all are equal, but some are just more equal than others. That's not what America is all about. It's the age-old struggle of freedom over tyranny.

When government bureaucrat gatekeepers have control over who lives and who dies in America, freedom is the first casualty. Just ask the elderly and the babies of Canada and England.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2892, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010:

Requesting Member: Congressman Ted Poe

Bill Number: H.R. 2892, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: CHRISTUS St. Elizabeth Hospital

Address of Requesting Entity: 2830 Calder Street, Beaumont, TX 77702

Description of Request: I have secured $250,000 in funding under FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation account to allow for the purchase of a 2.5 megawatt diesel generating plant to ensure sanitary and safe conditions for both current and potential patients during disasters. Although the Hospital has basic generator capabilities to sustain life support, Hurricanes Rita and Ike have proved that this basic capacity is insufficient. During Hurricane Ike, 190 patients were unable to be evacuated and as commercial utilities were shut down, basic hospital operations were compromised. The generator will make certain that the Hospital remains serviceable by ensuring that power and water are functional; thus, allowing the Hospital to maintain its mission of providing essential medical care to the residents of southeast Texas.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010:

Requesting Member: Congressman Ted Poe

Bill Number: H.R. 2996, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Environmental Protection Agency's STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Baytown, TX

Address of Requesting Entity: 2401 Market Street, Baytown, TX 77522

Description of Request: I, and Rep. Ron Paul, have jointly secured $500,000 in funding under the Environmental Protection Agency's STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project account for the city of Baytown, TX to help them fund a six-year, $140 million Capital Improvement Project that will rehabilitate and upgrade the city's wastewater and water infrastructure to comply with increased federal and state regulations, maintain its condition and reliability and save costs. This project rehabilitates portions of the Central District Wastewater Treatment plant. The work includes redesign of critical components to elevate structures out of the floodway and to reduce the storm surge impacts suffered as was suffered during Hurricane Ike. These include the influent lift station, blower building, administration/laboratory building, and grit removal process. The internal piping needs to be replaced to improve energy and operating efficiency, along with the chlorine contact basin and plant pumping/ transfer systems. Installation of post-storm emergency power systems are also a part of this project.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I represent southeast Texas, the energy capital of the United States. Twenty percent of the refineries in this country that help all these folks all over the fruited plain with energy, I represent them.

This week alone, we've had 86 people call and say, Vote for this bill. We've had 1,578 people in my district call and say vote ``no'' on this bill, almost 20 times the number of yes votes.

I'm an advocate for those people in southeast Texas. They believe, as I believe, we're going to close up America's energy with this bill. The CBO and the EPA says there's not going to be much difference in the climate if we pass this deal. Bummer. It's not even going to work.

And it's more important to realize this bill is about control, government control of our lives, our businesses, and everything we do. Washington, D.C. is going to dictate how we live and how we shall live and how our businesses will live. And it's all bad because D.C. is in control and not the people. This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the most patriotic time of the year is at hand. I love the Fourth of July. It is picnics, hot dogs, potato salad and barbecue. It is kids decorating wagons with red, white and blue for neighborhood parades and little kids sitting on their dad's shoulders watching the parade. It is horses and cowboys. It is John Phillips Sousa and ``The Stars and Stripes Forever.'' It is waving flags and thanking our troops for their service. It is yellow ribbons tied to trees.

The Fourth of July is a packed freeway and a long weekend. It is going to the beach and getting sand in everything. It is coolers, beach towels, blankets, sunscreen and the salty air.

It is the big fireworks display in the big cities and the small ones in the neighborhood. It is making circles in the air with sparklers. It is bottle rocket wars. It is Black Cat firecrackers and Roman candles. It is buy one, get four free.

It is stump speeches by politicians. It is people dressing up as Tom Jefferson and George Washington. It is snow cones and caramel apples. It is kids, grandkids and pets all packed in the Jeep and going for cotton candy.

Everybody is happy about the Fourth of July. There is nothing sad about freedom. After all, it is happy birthday to our country.

And that's just the way it is.

We all know that liberty is not free, and our history shows that it is cause to stand on principle. But freedom has always been worth the price.

Even before that magic list was published in 1776--on July 4--of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, those 56 men, the British knew who they were, and they had already marked down every Member of Congress suspected of putting their name to that treasonous document. All of them became the objects of individual manhunts by the British. Of course, the punishment for treason was death by hanging.

Of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine of them died of wounds or hardships during the American War of Independence. Five were captured and imprisoned. In each case, they were treated brutally. Several lost their wives, their sons, or their entire families. One Member lost all 13 of his children.

Two wives were brutally treated. And all at one time or another were victims of manhunts or driven from their homes. Twelve signers of the Declaration had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything that they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on their pledged word. Their honor and the Nation they sacrificed so much to create is, yes, still intact.

You see, they pledged to themselves their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. And they did not go back on their word.

New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark, gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. But they were captured and sent to the infamous British prison ship in New York harbor known as hell ship ``Jersey,'' where thousands of Americans who had been captured were going to die.

They were treated with a special brutality because of their father, Abraham Clark. But when the war was almost over, the British told Clark to come out in favor of the King and his sons' lives would be spared. Abraham Clark, in his anguished answer, replied, No.

Francis Lewis was a New York delegate. He saw his home plundered and his estates in what is now Harlem completely destroyed by the British. Mrs. Lewis, his wife, was captured and treated with great brutality because of her husband.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. But German Hessian soldiers rode after him and he escaped into the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead.

Hart, 65, hid in the woods as he was hunted throughout the countryside. When he finally made it home, he found that his wife had already been buried and his 13 children had disappeared. He never saw any of them again.

Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and his children. The family found refuge with friends, but a sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed and brutally beaten and put in jail.

Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity after he died.

John Morton was a British sympathizer, but once he came to sign the Declaration of Independence, he changed his mind and came out strongly for independence. Most of his neighbors, however, in Pennsylvania, and his relatives, were British sympathizers and ostracized him.

When he died, just 1 year later after signing the Declaration of Independence, his last words to his tormenters were, ``Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge the signing of the declaration to have been the most glorious service that I have rendered to my country.''

There were similar stories with the other 51 signers of the Declaration of Independence.

A person who did not sign the Declaration, but one of my favorite persons in history, and a son of liberty, was a schoolteacher by the name of Nathan Hale. He was from Connecticut. He was a 21-year-old teacher by trade, but joined the Colonial Army under George Washington.

At the Battle of Harlem Heights, George Washington was facing General Howe in battle and asked for a volunteer to go behind enemy lines and spy on behalf of the Colonial Army. Hale volunteered and went forward.

He disguised himself as a Dutch schoolmaster, set out on his mission for a week and he gathered information on the position of the British. But he

was finally captured when returning to the American lines. Because of incriminating papers that he had in his position, the British knew that he was a spy.

It is said that his cousin, a British sympathizer under Howe's command, betrayed him. So Howe ordered Hale to be hanged the following day without trial.

On September 22, 1776, American patriot Nathan Hale was hanged for spying on British troops. His famous last words, I regret that I have but one life to give to my country.

Mr. Speaker, an amazing breed these early Americans. So this July 4th we should pledge to ourselves and our Nation that no matter the cost, we who live here now will not ever allow the flame of liberty or the flag of freedom to quietly disappear from our land, a land that God has shed His grace upon.

And that's just the way it is.

Thank you for yielding, Judge Gohmert. You know, we approach what we consider the most important of all days for our Republic, and that's Independence Day.

And this legislation that unfortunately passed tonight has not made us more independent, but it has made us more dependent. As a Nation, we are more dependent upon, now, government control of every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our business lives.

When the government starts telling you what type of electricity you can have in your home, when the government starts telling you that you have to pass an energy efficiency before you can sell your home, maybe we have gone too far in the government controlling our lives. But that's just a smidge of what has occurred in the passing of this legislation.

I am not sure what the goal of the legislation was. We heard different things. One was that it's going to create more jobs for Americans. Well, that's just not going to happen. All the sane studies show that that's not going to occur in the United States.

There will be government programs, which means subsidies paid by taxpayers to go to, quote, green jobs. Those are programs, and they will be created, subsidized by the taxpayers, to move us in a direction of the green environment, which I will say just a little bit more about in a minute.

But one group that has not been mentioned today in the House debate that talked about jobs, the National Black Chamber of Commerce said this legislation will cost 2.5 million jobs almost immediately. Well, that's a lot of Americans being put out of work when we are already having Americans losing their jobs.

We do have an example of a country that has tried this legislation. Although they didn't sign this one, it's one very similar. Spain has had this so-called idea of trying to control carbon emissions in their country for several years, and they have created jobs, but they have lost jobs. For every green job that they have created, by their own statistics, two other jobs have been lost.

Now, I am not a CPA like Mr. Conaway is, but it would seem to me the more green jobs you create, the more jobs you are going to lose.

And that's what Spain has done, and now they are trying to get out from under their own legislation that has cramped their economy because they are losing jobs by moving to this so-called green job economy. So we are losing American jobs overseas for a lot of reasons already, and a lot of it is because of the high cost of energy. Now we are going to have energy cost increase. So first idea, a goal to create American jobs, that's just fiction.

The second thing is that this is supposed to be a bill to save the planet. You know, humans are bad and that we are creating all this gas that we need to control, and it's all because of energy. And so if we have this legislation that passed, we are going to save the planet.

Up until a few months ago, we heard from those people. That was called global warming. But since global warming is not occurring, it is now changed to climate change. We changed the title, because global warming does not appear to be what those who claim it to be is occurring here.

Now we hear from the Congressional Budget Office, when they testified before the Senate several weeks ago, that the effect of this legislation will have little or no effect on climate change.

Now, the first goal, create jobs, is a fiction. The second goal, to control the climate from bad humans, is not going to have any effect because of this legislation. And the third thing about this legislation is it costs too much; we can't afford it. We can't afford it even if it did create jobs or save the planet. But the billions of dollars in that 1,200 pages you have in front of you there, Judge Gohmert, that's going to cost Americans. It's not going to result in what we were all promised. So those are two items that I see as a major problem.

And another problem that I think is very paramount is the fact that we're going to turn our lives, our businesses over to government control. The government is going to control all energy in this country and it's going to tax it all. You turn on these lights here in the Capitol--of course this is the government, they don't have to pay their bills--but if you turn them on at home, the cost of electricity is going to go up. If you use natural gas, a hot water heater, that's going to go up. You drive down the street using gasoline, that's made from crude oil, that's going to go up. Because everything that uses energy--which is everything--will cost Americans more. The energy companies, the ones that stay in America, they will pass that tax on to consumers, and the consumers pay because the consumers always pay.

But the hardest hit group is going to be, as Mr. Souder from Indiana said, the small manufacturing plants in the United States. They have to use energy to produce their products. Whether it's a paper mill in east Texas or whether it's a van up in Indiana or whether it's a small steel mill in my district, they have to use some form of energy to produce the product.

Now, the cost of that energy is going to go up so high they cannot produce the product and sell it. Because, you see, over in China, they're producing the same product and can ship it to the United States cheaper because they're not bound by all of these energy regulations and are not taxed for use of energy as American manufacturing companies will be. And that's a sad thing because it has always been the small business--and really the small manufacturing companies--that's been the heart and soul of the American economy.

You know, there was a time when you could go into a Wal-Mart--you've got them in your district, I don't know if Mr. Conaway has them in his, but we have a lot of Wal-Marts--but you could go into a Wal-Mart and they had a big sign that said ``Made in America.'' They claimed that everything they sold in that Wal-Mart was made in America. Well, that sign isn't up anymore; it hasn't been up in years because I don't think they make anything in America that they sell at Wal-Mart. It irks me to no end. This time of year, you go into a Wal-Mart and you want to buy a flag, just like that one behind the Speaker, and it's made in China. We can't even make our own

flags because manufacturing in this country is being killed by the cost of doing business. And that bill in front of you, Judge Gohmert, is not going to help that at all. It's going to just make the situation worse.

The last thing that bill does not do is create more energy. It taxes energy. It does not provide for more energy for Americans. Nuclear energy, I mean, even France, 80 percent of its energy comes from nuclear energy. And it can be done and created in a clean and safe way. We don't have any more nuclear plants in this country because of the fear tactics that have been placed upon the thoughts, so we don't use nuclear energy.

So we're not doing anything. We're not drilling offshore even for natural gas. Natural gas is supposed to be the product that we go from this one environment to this beautiful environment. Of course, we can't get there from here. And now the other side that voted for this bill says, well, we need natural gas to bridge that gap because it's clean. Well, they don't allow drilling. You can't drill anymore. You can't drill offshore. You can't drill anywhere that there is natural gas. So how are we supposed to have energy to get to the clean energy if we cannot, as a Nation, even drill for natural gas?

So there's no nuclear, no natural gas, and of course we can't use clean coal. We don't want to use any more of that nasty old crude oil, even though crude oil and its byproducts is in everything Americans use, from plastics to our radios to our cell phones. It's in everything. And it's a derivative of some product of crude oil. We are always going to need crude oil to build the products that we have in this country. You can't build them all from biodiesels.

And so the bill does not do what it's supposed to do. It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't help the climate, it doesn't give us a new alternative for energy until we get to this supposed clean energy. And of course I think the worst thing is it takes control of Americans and their independence and makes us slaves to the Federal Government and the Federal bureaucrats to run our lives every day.

I will yield back, Judge Gohmert.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just speak to that issue of jobs. As you know, in my southeast Texas district I have 20 percent of the Nation's refineries; and those are blue collar jobs, union jobs. And it's a tremendous concern for not just management, but for those people who work in those refineries when they're told that the cost of producing energy--because they have to use, as you mentioned, fuel to produce energy--that they will be driven out of business and somewhere else where they didn't sign this 1,200-page bill. You know, China didn't sign that, Cuba didn't sign it, India didn't sign it. They laugh at us for signing it. And they're really doing a better job of making sure that they produce energy cleanly.

Perfect example: as you know, and have also advocated, we should drill in the Gulf of Mexico for more crude oil and natural gas. We can do that safely and cleanly. But we're not doing it. So who's going to do that? The Cubans and the Chinese are going to be drilling in waters that are near the United States where we ought to be drilling. And I can assure you that those platforms that the Cubans are building and the Chinese are helping them build are not going to be near as safe, pollution safe, as what we can currently do. And so it makes no sense that we hurt ourselves in producing energy and automatically say we're going to punish energy consumption by taxing energy and its consumers, the American people, out of business in hopes that we can get a cleaner environment. We'll all be riding bicycles and living in towns where we used to have to use candles because we're not going to have the energy to take care of ourselves as we are doing now.

I would yield back. Thank you.

Thank you for yielding.

The concern that I have about this bill is that, as I mentioned at the outset, we love the fact that we are a free people and that we are an independent Nation. This bill makes us dependent on government. It will control our lives. We have to get permission from the government for every action we will take as individuals and as businesses. We do not have free will to make decisions, because the government won't let us have that free will to make decisions. Decisions will be made by the government. The government picks winners and losers in that bill because it creates great subsidies to some people to make them more dependent on government and government control.

That is not what America is about. America is about freedom. It is not about dependence.

So the sad part about the bill is the aspect that it creates right here in Washington, D.C., as Mr. Conaway said, the center of the universe to some, control over everybody from Indiana to Texas to California to Hawaii to Florida. And that ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the bold and brave students defy the imperial regime of President Ahmadinejad of Iran as they struggle for freedom.

The people of Iran are being shot, assaulted and arrested by their repressive government. This is the same government that supplies arms and money to insurgents that are at war with our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a state sponsor of terror, or more appropriately called the ``Demons of Democracy'', are killing their own people, mostly students, whose only crime is speaking out in public against these tough tyrants.

As the Fourth of July nears, the most sacred of all days of liberty, how about we invite the sons of freedom and the daughters of democracy of Iran for a bit of ``Hot Dog Diplomacy?'' The youth of Iran have shown more tenacity and love of freedom than the world has seen in years.

There would be no better way to honor the Fourth of July, our Founders and our heritage, than to celebrate this glorious day by opening our embassies not to the Iranian Government, but to these students who desire freedom and liberty.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman from Idaho for yielding and also appreciate the chairman and all the indulgence tonight. I know it's been a long evening, and as we approach midnight here in the cradle of democracy and freedom, sad darkness is also falling heavy on the men and women and their families of the Houston Police Department in Texas.

Madam Chair, two nights ago we lost a hero veteran police officer in our city of Houston. The Houston Police Department Senior Officer Henry Canales was killed in the line of duty. He was an undercover police officer doing the very dangerous work of holding criminals accountable to the law. It is because of brave men like Officer Canales

that the rest of America can sleep safely tonight and every night.

Undercover officers face their own unique set of dangers. Assuming the identity of the criminal, they mix with the worst elements of evil in our society. They seek out these outlaws, become a part of their world, and they bring them to justice. Their bravery, their nerve is unequaled anywhere in our country. They live to serve and protect our freedom and our homes.

Two nights ago, about this time at night, Officer Canales and other undercover Houston police officers met with four people in the parking lot of a drugstore. These four thieves were buying stolen TVs in a sting operation by the Houston Police Department. Things started going downhill in this operation right after the money changed hands.

After the transaction, Officer Canales, working undercover, walked around to the front of a truck, and the suspect followed and drew a weapon. Gunfire rang out in the silent night air, and Officer Canales was shot.

A second undercover police officer, Officer R. Lopez, went to help his fellow downed officer. Lopez was attempting to subdue and handcuff the shooter when the suspect fired at least two more times. Lopez returned the fire. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene, and Officer Lopez was not injured.

By the way, Madam Chair, the shooter and two other of the bandits were illegally in the United States at the time of this crime.

Officer Canales served at the Houston Police Department for 16 years, spending the last 7 of them in the Auto Theft and Burglary Division, the same division he was working two nights ago when he was killed. He had also worked in northeast patrol.

Officer Canales had also built and raced hot rods together with his family. He was active in drag racing and raced with an organization called Beat the Heat, which combats street racing. He lived in the nearby community of Baytown, Texas, with his family.

Chief of Police Harold Hurtt said Canales ``was not only an outstanding officer but an outstanding individual.'' He cared a great deal about his family, the people he worked with and, of course, the City of Houston that he served.

Madam Chair, I spent 30 years at the courthouse in Houston, Texas, as a prosecutor and as a judge. I have known hundreds of Houston police officers. They are the finest caliber and strongest of character, and Officer Canales was a rare breed in our culture who wore the badge to defend and protect the rest of us.

Officer Canales died during surgery at the hospital where he and his family and hundreds of other officers had gathered. He was 42 years of age. This is a photograph of Officer Canales. He leaves behind his wife, Amor, a 15-year-old son and a 17-year-old daughter.

Officer Canales was the first Houston Police Department officer killed in the line of duty this year. The last time we had an officer killed was December 7 of last year. Officer Tim Abernethy was killed by a gunman that ambushed him during a foot chase in northeast Houston.

In the State of Texas, six police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year. They are Senior Corporal Norman Smith of the Dallas Police Department, Officer Cesar Arreola of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department, Lieutenant Stuart J. Alexander of the Corpus Christi Police Department, Sergeant Randy White of the Bridgeport Police Department, Deputy Sheriff D. Robert Harvey of the Lubbock County Sheriff's Department, and now we add the name of Senior Officer Henry Canales of the Houston Police Department to that hallowed roll of honor.

All Americans should recognize the profound debt of gratitude we owe our law enforcement officers and also the gratitude we owe their families. These officers put themselves into harm's way to guard our safety because they care about our communities and the people they serve. They are the ones standing between us and the bad guys every single day.

So tonight we bid farewell with humble gratitude to Senior Officer Henry Canales. And to his wife, Amor, and his children, we say: May the Lord bless you and keep you. May His face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, this country has lost nearly 3 million jobs just this year. That's over a million more than the 2 million men, women, and children, including illegals living within the fourth largest city in the United States, namely, Houston, Texas.

We are still buying oil from dictators who don't like us because the enviro-elites are dead set on their none-of-the-above energy plan. No oil, no gasoline, no oil shale, no clean coal, no nuclear, no drilling, and that means no natural gas. Just what do they expect to use to power the Nation's cities and industry?

The taxacrats' plan is simple: tax energy consumption. And because of these new taxes and higher energy costs, even more jobs are at risk.

According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the national energy tax will cost another 2.5 million jobs in America. America cannot afford any more of this change. The cap-and-trade bill will cost jobs, raise taxes, raise the cost of energy, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, won't even significantly help the climate.

The bill is bad for everybody except the enviro-elites who get more government control over the rest of us. What we need to do is cap the taxacrats and trade them for some offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, the amendment I am offering today seeks to add additional funding to the highly successful and widely supported National Predisaster Mitigation Fund. In a time of deficits and rampant government spending, predisaster mitigation is good for the taxpayer.

According to a study first released in 2005, the ``National Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities,'' performed by the group called the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Council, stated that for every $1 spent on mitigation, $3 to $4 is saved. Further, the Congressional Budget Office issued its own report on predisaster mitigation and its cost savings and confirmed the savings derived from this program.

According to these studies, this amendment that I'm offering could save anywhere from $96 million to $128 million in future disaster costs. In communities such as I represent along the gulf coast of Texas, predisaster mitigation is essential in weathering future devastating hurricanes which have ravaged my district in recent years in helping to reduce the cost towards recovery. Just since I've been elected, the following hurricanes have hit my southeast district in Texas: Katrina, Rita, Humbert, Gustav, and the latest is Ike.

Every year it seems, Madam Chairman, a new hurricane comes down Hurricane Alley through my congressional district, but also hits other gulf States. The purpose of this program is to implement hazard reduction measures prior to an event. Funds can be used to help retrofit buildings, such as the courthouse that is used as the Center for Emergency Management Services. Those retrofitting buildings can withstand high wind damage. Also it moves properties out of flood plains, and flood-proof buildings, among many other things.

The problem is requests for funding from this program is three times the amount of money that is actually available under current law. This amendment takes $32 million out of the $850 million of salaries. The $32 million figure comes from the amount that's over the President's request. And communities throughout Hurricane Alley and other areas in the country prone to devastation, such as earthquakes and wildfires, are all looking at ways to strengthen their defenses and avoid the often long and painful recovery.

The predisaster recovery program is a community-based program and emphasizes commitment to local input on what's needed. Over the last decade, the predisaster mitigation program has developed and grown as mitigation itself has become accepted as Federal policy. Adoption and expansion of mitigation as a beneficial approach for government has been bolstered by studies that demonstrated cost reductions following disasters due to earlier mitigation investments.

So I ask support of this amendment and support of communities that would benefit from this amendment before disaster strikes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I appreciate the chairman's input on my amendment.

As I mentioned earlier, the request for predisaster mitigation funds is three times what is available under current law. And I probably have dealt with FEMA as much as anybody in this House, not by choice, but because of the fact that our district keeps getting hammered by hurricanes, starting with Katrina. And the management system of FEMA has a lot to be desired. That has to be dealt with eventually in another issue.

Hurricane Rita, 2005, people in my congressional district are still living with blue plastic tarps on their roofs because of the inadequate response. That is why this bill is so important, because it allows for predisaster mitigation. It allows the hospitals to get a generator so that when they lose their power, they are able to take care of the patients that are in the emergency room. That is a portion of predisaster mitigation.

And I think it's imperative that we be proactive because it takes FEMA too long to respond to disasters, which drives up the cost of recovery. Some people in my district still say FEMA is the disaster.

We talked earlier on other amendments about the fact that a next terrorist attack may occur in New York City. That may be so. But Mother Nature, as we say in Texas, ``has a mad on'' for Hurricane Alley because we keep getting hammered every year with hurricanes.

And one way to help is to ratchet up the amount of money available in areas in the Gulf Coast and other parts of the country that have the likelihood of being hit by a major disaster. Where recovery takes a long time, and if we are prepared with just a third of the money that is needed to recover, we can be prepared, and communities can get back together a lot quicker.

So I would respectfully disagree with the chairman and say that we need to adopt this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the turmoil continues in Iran with the little man from the desert, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, claiming victory in the apparent fraudulent presidential elections.

Leave it to the students of Iran to continue to protest, in spite of the government's shooting of students and others who risk their lives for the human right to peaceably assemble and freedom of speech.

Backed by the government-controlled press and the religious leaders, Ahmadinejad is trying to quell the hundreds of thousands who say his claim to the imperial throne of the presidency is a fraud.

The sons of liberty and the daughters of democracy in Iran who wish to exercise the right of free speech and freedom to assemble should resolve this drama peaceably in order to ensure their human rights. And I hope our American policy would be morally and verbally supportive, as stated by President Kennedy years ago when he said, ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.''

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, as dangerous to the public's health and well-being as government-run health care is in Europe and Canada, we have our own American example that has some very serious problems. Last month there was a surprise inspection at Veterans Affairs clinics in the United States. The surprise inspections exposed that fewer than half of those clinics followed proper standards for colonoscopies.

Some mistakes could have exposed veterans to HIV and other diseases. Let me repeat: Less than half followed proper medical standards for colonoscopies.

Since February, the VA has informed 10,000 veterans in three States to get retested. More than 50 patients tested positive for infections, including some with HIV. But that's just the beginning of the medical malpractice by the VA.

VA patients with prostate cancer were put through their own particular set of horrors. In Philadelphia, a patient received a common surgical procedure where a doctor implants dozens of radioactive seeds to attack the cancer.

But the doctor's aim was more than a little off. Most of the radioactive seeds, 40 of them to be exact, ended up in the patient's healthy bladder instead of the prostate. The mistake was a serious one, and under Federal rules it was investigated by the bureaucrat regulators. The regulators allowed the doctor to rewrite his surgical plan to make his mistake just disappear.

In the private sector, somebody would have been held accountable for this negligence, but not with government-run health care VA style. They cover up their errors.

The patient had to undergo a second radiation implant. This time the unintended dose ended up in his rectum. Once again, more negligence. Two years later in 2005, the same doctor made the same mistake, putting more than half of the radioactive seeds in the wrong organ, and again the bureaucrat regulators did not object when he once again rewrote his surgical plan to cover up his mistake.

Had the bureaucrat regulators actually done their jobs, they would have uncovered what the media calls a rogue cancer unit. This one Philadelphia VA hospital, botched 92 of 116 treatments over 6 years, then covered it up.

Let me repeat, Madam Speaker, the VA government health care hospital in Philadelphia medically erred in 92 of 116 cancer treatments. The medical team continued to perform these radiation implants, even though for over a year the equipment that measured whether or not the patient had received proper radiation dosage was broken. Records proved that the radiation safety committee at the veterans hospital knew of this problem but took no action.

In Philadelphia, 57 of the implants delivered too little radiation to the prostate, either because the seeds were planted in the wrong organ or were not distributed properly inside the prostate. Thirty-five other cases involve overdoses to other parts of the body. An unspecified number of patients were both underdosed in the prostate and overdosed somewhere else in their body. This is a horrible way to treat America's veterans.

Another patient, 21-year veteran of the Air Force, had to remain in bed 6 months with pain so severe he couldn't even stand. He lost his job as a pastor at a local church and all of his income, thanks again to the incompetence of the Veterans Administration.

Adding insult to injury, this 21-year veteran of the Air Force didn't learn of the radiation injury from the Philadelphia VA hospital. He found out when he sought treatment in Ohio at a hospital where he underwent major surgery to treat the damage.

Because the bureaucrat regulators were covering up for the VA, it took a private hospital to not only diagnose but treat his injury. That is right, Madam Speaker, the good old private sector saved the veteran where the VA just took a pass.

The New York Times conducted its own examinations. They found that none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care had worked. They also found none of the botched implants in Philadelphia were reported properly. So the errors weren't investigated for weeks, months and sometimes years.

During that time, many patients did not know their cancer treatments were flawed by our government-run health care. The regulators are now looking into the flawed implants in other government-run VA hospitals in Mississippi and Ohio. Who knows what they will find out there about the way government treats our veterans.

Madam Speaker, the Veterans Administration is a government-run health care program that treats our veterans cavalierly in these examples. Veterans should be able to go to any doctor or any hospital to be treated and not bound and tied to VA hospitals. And, also, this is a prime example of how things will be when the government takes over the health care of all Americans. Do we really want the government to control our health care? Not a healthy idea for Americans or for veterans.

And that's just the way it is.

About 100 years ago, there was a fight brewing in Dallas. Back then there was a different type of 9-1-1. When you needed to bring in the big guns, you knew who to call. So the Dallas mayor made his urgent plea for help and was waiting anxiously for the Calvary to ride into town, so to speak. As Captain Bill McDonald stepped off the train, the mayor was elated, but wondered out loud where the rest of 'em were? ``Hell! ain't I enough? There's only one prize-fight!'' Those words have become synonymous with the Texas Rangers: One Riot, One Ranger.

This past weekend I had the honor and privilege to speak to over 300 Texas Rangers in Waco, Texas. I was like a kid in a candy shop! Some were not active Rangers anymore, but don't think that made any real difference in their appearance or demeanor. Just like a Marine; once a Ranger, always a Ranger. There is no ``ex-Ranger.''

As I mingled through the sea of starched shirts, jeans and cowboy hats, I thought I had died and gone to Heaven. You can always spot a Ranger. Long, lean and mean with a silver star made out of a Mexican sliver dollar and six guns. It was like I was talking to Gus McCray and Woodrow Call of Lonesome Dove. The legends of the greatest law enforcement agency ever known were alive and well. And me, a mere U.S. Congressman, was getting to hang out with them!

The Texas Rangers can be traced back to the earliest days of Texas history, technically long before we were Texas. They are the oldest law enforcement organization on the North American continent with statewide jurisdiction. Stephen F. Austin got a few men together to protect the early settlers from Indians in the early 1800s. They got their name from their primary duty--patrol the range and keep the peace. For over 200 years, their purpose hasn't really changed.

In 1835, at the beginning of the Texas Revolution, the Corps of Rangers was established; and in 1847, they officially became known as the Texas Rangers. Twenty-five men under the command of Silas M. Parker were designated to protect the frontier between the Brazos and the Trinity; ten men under Garrison Greenwood were assigned to the east side of the Trinity; and 25 men under D.B. Frazier to patrol between the Brazos and the Colorado. They did what even the U.S. Army could not do--protect the settlers from the Indians.

Through the years the Texas Rangers have increased and decreased in numbers and their charges have varied, but their duty has never waivered. During the Texas Revolution, while the Texians' focus was on defeating Santa Anna's army, the Rangers focused on protecting the settlements from Indians. During the Mexican-American War, they became know as the ``Los Diablos Tejanos''--the Texas Devils, for their fierce protection of the frontier.

Their storied history can fill pages and pages; their duties and contributions are just too long to list. But, the famous words of Captain Bill McDonald have evolved into the Ranger creed and pretty much say it all: ``No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin.''

They have been the focus of legend, lore, radio shows, Hollywood movies and television dramas. One Ranger, and the outlaw who wronged him, even made their way to my courtroom. Back in 1988, the Lone Ranger flew into Houston Intercontinental Airport to speak at a charity for disabled kids. When he left town a baggage handler stole his luggage. (Yes, the real Lone Ranger; some people know him as the actor Clayton Moore, but believers know he is actually the Lone Ranger.)

Inside this bag were his twin ivory handled Colt .45s--might as well have been the Hope Diamond itself.

Well, when it came to sentencing I really had no choice in the matter. This was the Lone Ranger after all and he had been wronged. It was my duty as a Texan and a man of the law to punish this outlaw in the name of everything holy and sacred--600 hours shoveling manure at the Houston Police Department Mounted Patrol stables.

And through it all, I refused to reveal the true identity of the Lone Ranger. I allowed him to remain ``masked'' and wear his white hat in the court--even over the loud objections of the defense attorney. I was not about to go down in history as the man who un-masked the Lone Ranger!

These lawmen have always had a certain swagger; a certain something about them that made them Rangers. Another legendary Ranger, who lived up to his nickname, ``Rip'' (Rest in Peace) Ford said this about the men that served under him: ``A large proportion . . . were unmarried. A few of them drank intoxicating liquors. Still, it was a company of sober and brave men. They knew their duty and they did it. While in a town they made no braggadocio demonstration. They did not gallop through the streets, shoot, and yell. They had a specie of moral discipline which developed moral courage. They did right because it was right.''

Whether they be fact or fiction, Texas Rangers are a special breed. But, would we really expect anything less from Texas? Nowadays they mainly work alone. They are the finest law enforcement agency in the world.

By the way, Ranger Captain Bill McDonald successfully stopped the Dallas Prize Fight Riot--by himself.

And that's just the way it is.