Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of the most important things taking place in our country, and that is the battle on the second front. I am not talking about the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq, but I am talking about the battle that is fought daily on the southern border of the United States with Mexico and those people that try to come into the United States illegally. I call it the border wars.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about that crime comes into the United States from the south, from all countries, through Mexico. And then we hear that it is not really a problem. Sometimes it is very difficult for us to know exactly what the truth is. It always tends to be based upon who is giving us that information.

Recently, I was down on the Texas-Mexico border. I visited with numerous of our sheriffs and I asked them this question: How many people do you have in your county jail that are charged with crimes in your county? I am not talking about people being held on immigration violations, just people in jail charged with misdemeanors or felonies. And so the different sheriffs gave me the information that I would like to relate to you tonight.

We will start off in far west Texas, in El Paso, a large population. The Sheriff's Department says: About 18 percent of the people in our county jail are foreign nationals in the United States legally, illegally, charged with crimes, misdemeanors or felonies.

You move next door to Hudspeth County, a vast county the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island, not very many sheriff's deputies in that county. Sheriff Arvin West says: 90 percent of the people in my county jail are foreign nationals.

Moving on down the Rio Grande River toward the Gulf of Mexico, Culberson County Sheriff Carrillo, 22 percent. The three next counties, Jeff Davis, Presidio, and Brewster Counties did not have information that they could furnish me, so I will move on down the river and talk about the other ones.

Val Verde County, 39 percent of the people in the county jail are foreign nationals; Kinney County, 71 percent, foreign nationals; Maverick County, 65 percent; Dimmit County, 45 percent; Webb County, that is where Laredo is, 45 percent are foreign nationals; Zapata County, 65 percent; Starr County, 53 percent; Hidalgo County, 23 percent; and then Cameron County, down on the Mexico-Texas border that buttresses the Gulf of Mexico, is 28 percent.

You can make statistics prove whatever you want them to, Mr. Speaker, but those are a lot of people in American jails from foreign countries that have been charged with committing crimes in this country. That is one reason, maybe the primary reason, why we need to protect the sanctity of the border.

We talk about border security. We are spending money on border security. We are sending a lot of money down to Mexico to spend on border security. But the truth of the matter is cross-traveler crime is still being committed, and people are committing crimes in American counties who are foreign nationals, and it is time the United States realize this truth and secure the border.

A lot of these people are charged with drug crimes, the drug cartels, drug runners. Many of those people in our jails are those individuals. We are learning now that there is a new effort to build tunnels into the United States, not just over in California, but in Texas and Arizona, as well, where needed.

So, obviously, the sheriffs in these counties need help, and we need everybody working on the border, all the Federal agencies, the Border Patrol, the ATF, the DEA, we need all of them. Plus, we need the locals who patrol the whole county. Unlike the Border Patrol that only patrols the first 35 miles inland, the county sheriffs patrol the vastness of the county.

So what can they do about it? There are a couple of programs that we need to help the sheriffs be involved in. One of those is they can get from the Department of Defense used equipment, equipment that has been used by our military, and all they have to do is repair it and they can use that equipment. We are talking about Humvees. We are talking about trucks. We are talking about, even, helicopters. They can repair that equipment by sending it to the State penitentiary where those mechanics are that can repair it. They can also buy, at a low price, equipment that has been used occasionally, new or used equipment that is no longer used by our military.

So both of those things, we should encourage the sheriffs departments to use and to get that equipment. Because, you see, Mr. Speaker, the drug cartels have more money, they have more people, they have better equipment than we do on this side of the border, and that is one way we can enforce the security of the border.

We ought to also use the National Guard on the border. The border Governors have requested the use of the National Guard, and we should use the National Guard.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have met with the sheriffs from Brownsville all the way to San Diego, and they are in a group called the Southwest Border Sheriff's Coalition. There is 31 of these sheriffs, and they have asked, through me, to ask the President of the United States to meet with them so the sheriffs can tell the President firsthand what is taking place on the border from Brownsville, Texas, all the way to San Diego, California, and hopefully the President will do that. We need to protect the border. That is the first duty of government.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, since the Nation has no official energy policy, we continue to discuss what shall we do about energy for the future.

The cynics and the critics don't want us to use fossil fuels such as clean coal or oil. They don't want us drilling for even natural gas.

We can never build enough of those gangly windmill eyesores to make much of a difference. Solar energy technology is still lagging behind in development, and we are learning that the corn-based ethanol that was to save us all is too much of a pollutant and a poor use of our own land.

So what are we to do? Are we going to freeze in the dark or bake in the global heat, depending on whether one believes global warming is fact or fiction?

Today I visited the North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia. I was impressed with their pride for safety, security and competence. This plant, along with 63 others, safely produces 20 percent of our Nation's electricity. But France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

So we should defy the cynics and the critics and produce energy from all safe sources, including actively pursuing more clean nuclear power, or we will eventually be left behind in the darkness of the winter night.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, May 5, tomorrow, 145 years ago this day, May 5, 1864, 90 miles from where we are today and tonight, Madam Speaker, there were 160,000 troops assembled on one battlefield. Over 100,000 from the North and about 25,000 from the South, and they participated in the 3-day battle called the Battle of the Wilderness.

Madam Speaker, this battle was so intense that the wilderness itself, the woods, caught on fire during the battle and many from both sides burned to death. Casualties were about 30,000.

And if you take the number of men and women we have in Afghanistan and Iraq tonight, 160,000 is approximately the number that we have in those two theatres of war. They were assembled on one battlefield in the great Civil War.

Madam Speaker, during the Civil War there were over 600,000 killed. If we took that and brought it into today's numbers, that would be about 5 million killed.

Today I had the honor to be with my good friend, Peter Welch of Vermont, and actor Robert Duvall, on this sacred hallowed ground. We were there for several reasons, but the primary reason was to preserve this battlefield.

During the Battle of the Wilderness, Vermonters had especially high casualties. Of the 3,500 that went into battle, 1,234 were killed.

Peter Welch of Vermont and myself had the privilege to go and see that location, that small area where they were protecting the crossroads. This was the highest percentage of casualties in Vermont history. Most of those that were killed were from the small community of Woodstock.

On the first day of battle, the Union troops were able to push the Southern troops away. On the second day of battle, a Texas brigade, led by General Longstreet, had arrived at the battle after marching all night, 26 miles, at about 6:30 in the morning.

General Robert E. Lee was excited to see the Texas brigade, and he said the Texans always moved them and, yes, they did, they moved the Union forces back a great distance. The general for the Texas Army said that ``the eyes of General Lee are upon you,'' and Lee rode with Texas. About 60 percent of those Texans who went into battle that day were killed.

Madam Speaker, all of the southern States participated in this battle. Eighteen of the northern States participated in this battle, and there are stories like that from all States, this sacred ground, where the Battlefield of the Wilderness, took place.

But today we are faced with another battle, Madam Speaker, because the giant corporation Wal-Mart wants to build a Wal-Mart on that sacred ground. You see, during the battle, blood was spilled so much that one soldier said you can't tell whose blood it was, and that's exactly right, Madam Speaker. Every one of those troops that were killed that day, that fought that day and bled that day, whether North or South, were all Americans.

And that's why Peter Welch and myself and Robert Duvall were there today to get the attention of Wal-Mart to not build on this sacred ground. Yes, they have the legal right to do so, but they should move down the street, down the road a bit and build the Wal-Mart that they want to build.

Because, you see, this ground is consecrated by the blood of Americans, and we don't want Wal-Mart to pour asphalt over the graves that are known only to God himself. So they should be a good corporate neighbor and build down the street.

You know, they need to put respect for history over love for money. They need to put dignity for the dead over lust for profit, because those that try to destroy history will be tried and convicted by history.

Wal-Mart has got more money than anybody. They can put their store anyplace they wish. So we are asking them to be good patriots rather than those who seek the profit motive and go somewhere else.

Peter Welch and I are good friends. We probably disagree on everything except this one thing, that this land is consecrated by the lives of Americans who stood for some principle and died for that principle.

He said it best today when numerous people were there. He said the land, the Battlefield of the Wilderness, is the cathedral of sacrifice.

I agree with my good friend from Vermont. It is the cathedral of sacrifice, and we want to remember and preserve our history. We owe the dead that right, and Wal-Mart needs to move away.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Homeland Security is going to spend $740 million to beef up legal ports of entry into the United States. We absolutely need more border security. The problem is the bureaucrats who have probably never been to either of our borders are sending most of that money to little-used crossings, including one that just handles two cars and sees only four people a day. Many of these 37 crossings that are getting money average merely 50 cars and 85 people a day.

Contrast that with the Laredo-Nuevo Laredo legal crossing. It is receiving no additional money, and it is the largest legal port of entry in North America. It is vital to U.S.-Mexico trade. Over 7,000 18-wheelers a day cross that border in each direction. Trucks wait 2 hours to come into the United States. The vast majority of these trucks are not screened due to manpower and money issues.

Why not close the little used ports of entry that are now receiving most of the money and send the border agents where they could do some real good, to the port of entry where people and vehicles actually cross? But that would be too logical for the D.C. bureaucrats.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, a lot of hype has occurred about the first hundred days of the new government. The question to be asked is, is America safer today than a hundred days ago?

Well, the government has determined to close Guantanamo Bay prison in spite of evidence these terrorists still want to harm us; the United States is considering canceling the development of the most advanced fighter in world history, the F-22; foreign computer hackers have gotten into the Defense Department system; North Korea launched its first ballistic missile while we did nothing but object; the United States now wants to scrap its missile defense system in Poland because the Russians are complaining, even though the system was designed to protect us from Iranian missiles, not the Russians.

The little fellow from Iran, Ahmadinejad, still boasts of nuclear destruction of Israel while mocking our President behind his back; Homeland Security leaked vital intelligence about national security; the defense budget is going to be cut so the new government can spend money on its own pet projects.

Hopefully, the new government will change this dangerous trend and remember the first duty of government is to protect the American people.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in a courthouse in Houston, Texas, where I worked 8 years as a prosecutor and 22 as a judge, there is a statement that says, ``Equal justice for all.'' I guess now we need to change that, but to the phrase, ``but more justice for some.''

This bill makes some victims more important than other victims. If someone is in a legislated protected class--as this bill does--and a crime is committed against them, the defendant is treated harsher than if the crime is committed against a victim in a nonprotected class. This legislation discriminates against victims that are not special people. It reminds me of the satire in the book ``Animal Farm'' where it says, ``all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'' Likewise, this bill makes some victims of crime more equal than others. In my opinion, that denies nonspecial victims equal protection under the law, according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The question is, is it fair to treat some victims of crime better under our law than other people who are not special? This bill makes classes of victims; first-class victims and second-class victims.

No question about it, Mr. Speaker, motive for a crime has always been admissible in a court of law. In my experience at the courthouse, courts and juries nail offenders to the wall that commit crimes based upon racial hatred. Perfect example is the example that my friend, Sheila Jackson-Lee, just referred to in the Jasper killing. Without a hate law in Texas, the individuals that committed that crime

against that individual, Mr. Byrd, two of them got the death penalty-- and unlike some States, we execute folks in Texas--they have been executed, and the other person got a life sentence. No question about it, motive is admissible in all crimes in all courtrooms. However, this legislation is not the answer. It will chill free speech, while making some victims less important than others.

American law has always punished the act. This law changes that to punish the thought process of individuals and does make some people more special than others when it comes to being victims of crime, and that ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, according to a recently released secret memo by Homeland Security, America now faces new serious threats. I am not referring to al Qaeda, the Somali pirates, or radical Islamic terrorists. The memo states we are in danger from people who are concerned about our porous borders, gun owners, returning military veterans, the recent tax protestors at the TEA parties, and those who want to protect the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, these Americans simply disagree with the administration on certain issues. But by disagreeing, they are now labeled and vilified by Homeland Security as extremists and threats to America. So because of Homeland Security paranoia, is the cloak and dagger agency going to watch these people and spy on them under the guise of national security? We shall see.

This is a dangerous policy and attack on individual liberty and a denial of free speech. Homeland Security should do their real job like finding radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us in the name of religion rather than making a watch list and snooping around in the private lives of patriots who are just exercising their absolute right to disagree.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague and friend Mr. Costa from California as an original sponsor of this resolution to recognize and support the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Together, Mr. Costa and myself chair the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus. The caucus is comprised of Members from both sides of the aisle who are dedicated to protecting the interests and needs of crime victims throughout our country. Crime victim issues are not partisan. They are nonpartisan issues, Mr. Speaker, and affect everyone in this country.

In 1980, President Ronald Reagan first called for a national observance to recognize and honor the millions of crime victims and those survivors in this country. Since then, Victims' Rights Week has been proclaimed annually with ceremonies and observances here in Washington, D.C. and thousands of communities throughout the Nation.

Each April, the Office for Victims of Crime, called the OVC, organizes a weeklong series of activities and rallies to increase public awareness of the rights, the needs and concerns of crime victims in the United States. The theme of this year's National Crime Victims' Rights Week is ``25 Years of Rebuilding Lives: Celebrating the Victims of Crime Act.''

In 1984, the Victims of Crime Act, called VOCA, created the VOCA fund, a Federal victims compensation account funded by fines assessed in Federal criminal convictions. This is a collection of criminal fines, not taxpayer dollars.

The way it works, Mr. Speaker, criminals convicted in Federal Court contribute into a fund, as I say paying for the crimes they have committed, paying rent on the courthouse, and that fund is used exclusively for victims and victims' services throughout the United States. It is not a taxpayer-funded fund; it is a fund solely funded by criminals. What a novel idea: Make criminals pay to the victims of crime, victims that many of them have caused to be victims in the first place.

Also the Victims of Crime Act establishes the Office for Victims of Crime to distribute those funds throughout the United States. In fact, with the help of the OVC, there are now 10,000 victim assistance programs providing emotional, financial, physical and spiritual support every day. All of these organizations owe to some extent their existence because of the VOCA funds that were established by Congress many years ago.

VOCA is the only Federal fund that caters to the needs of victims. Each year, about 4,400 agencies and almost 3.5 million victims receive support and financial compensation from this fund funded by criminals. Just to clarify, this money that is collected is used to help victims and their families.

This year, during National Crime Victims' Rights Week, we celebrate that the VOCA fund has been assisting victims for over 25 years and has distributed literally billions of dollars since its inception. Currently there are $6.5 billion in this fund, funds that will be given to victims and victims services. It is important that we as Members of Congress make sure that the bureaucrats, however, don't see this fund and take the fund and use it for other services in the United States that have nothing to do with victims.

While the events of this week provide excellent opportunities to focus on victims' rights, this issue requires attention by Members of Congress so that the VOCA fund is not taken by the bureaucrats and used for other purposes.

Last month, four police officers in Oakland, California, Dan Sakai, 35, Mark Dunakin, 40, John Hege, 41, and Ervin Romans, 43, were shot to death by a 27-year-old parolee. Earlier this month, an armed man walked into a New York Immigration and Naturalization service center and shot 17 people, killing 13 and wounding four others.

The National Center For Victims of Crime reports that during 2008 a child was reported abused or neglected almost every 35 seconds. In my home State of Texas alone, there were more than 83,000 separate allegations of abuse or neglect confirmed by Child Protective Services.

Crime victims, Mr. Speaker, are not statistics. They are real men, women and children with families and loved ones, and those victims who manage to survive the acts of violence must not be excluded from the criminal justice system. Their voices must be heard, and in honor of every victim, we renew our commitment to protect the rights of crime victims and provide them effective assistance programs, and we also commend the countless professionals and volunteers who have dedicated literally their lives to help victims and survivors of crime.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman from Virginia for leading this resolution, but also I do want to thank my friend from California, Mr. Costa, for not only sponsoring this legislation, but for his hard work nationally on victims' rights and the movement. He literally started the victims' rights movement in California, the State that we owe a lot to for the victims' right movement when he was in the State legislature there in California, and he has brought his passion to help victims of crime to the United States Congress, and we are all better for that.

Last week in honor of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, the Victim's Rights Caucus, as Mr. Costa mentioned, had several preliminary events. One was the fourth annual Victim's Rights Caucus awards ceremony.

At the awards ceremony last Wednesday night, Mr. Costa and myself joined other Members of the House, Mr. Shadegg from Arizona, Mr. Yarmuth from Kentucky and Mr. Reichert from Washington in honoring six outstanding victim advocates and victim programs.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the names and the awards of these six recipients.

2009 Victims' Rights Caucus Awards Recipients

(1) Suzanne McDaniel Public Awareness Award--Katherine

Cabaniss. Ms. Cabaniss is the Executive Director of Houston

Crime Stoppers. As a former Assistant District Attorney, she

has a passion for preventing and fighting crime. During her

time with Crime Stoppers, Ms. Cabaniss has built strategic

alliances with people and organizations who assist victims of

crime, including local school districts, apartment property

management companies, and women's shelters. She has

strengthened Crime Stoppers relationship with the media, and

in doing so, has used her voice to promote safe communities

and justice for victims of crime. Cabaniss was nominated by

Representative Ted Poe (TX-02).

(2) Ed Stout Memorial Award for Outstanding Victim

Advocacy--Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual

Assault. The Alliance represents everything that Mr. Stout

worked so hard for during his work on behalf of crime victims

and survivors. They are a nonprofit, grassroots organization

that since 1979 has provided support and services to victims

of domestic violence and sexual assault in Kern County and

the surrounding area. These services are free, and are

bilingual, which serves Kern County's diverse ethnic

background. Their strong focus on assisting victims of

violence against women in rural areas is remarkable. The

Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault was

nominated by Representative Jim Costa (CA-20).

(3) Ed Stout Memorial Award for Outstanding Victim

Advocacy--Sheryl Cates. Ms. Cates has spent the last 25 years

advocating for victims of domestic violence at all levels. As

Executive Director at Women's Protective Services in Lubbock,

TX, Ms. Cates worked directly with victims as well as

supervising staff who provide services to victims. Also, as

CEO of the Texas council on Family Violence, National

Domestic Violence Hotline and loveisrespect.org National Teen

Dating Abuse Helpline, Ms. Cates is recognized nationally as

an expert in the field of domestic violence and as someone

who can be counted on to participate in any efforts to

support the needs of victims and their families. Cates was

nominated by Representative Lamar Smith (TX-21)

(4) Lois Haight Award of Excellence and Innovation--Steve

Twist. Mr. Twist has worked tirelessly to ensure that every

jurisdiction in America provides victims with rights in the

criminal justice system and that those rights are enforceable

by the individual victim. He has worked as counsel to the

Navajo Nation, aiding in the drafting of various victim

provisions, and is the principal author of the Arizona

constitutional amendment for victims' rights and the Arizona

Victims' Rights Implementation Act, which together are the

strongest victims' rights legal provisions in the country.

Mr. Twist was nominated by Representative John Shadegg (AZ-

03)

(5) Eva Murillo Unsung Hero Award--Jenny Wieland Ms.

Wieland's 17 year old daughter and only child was murdered by

another teen in 1992. She turned her pain into purpose and

has worked tirelessly to reduce youth violence, in hopes that

other mothers

would not have to experience the loss of a child to a violent

crime. In 1994, Jenny Wieland became a founding board member

of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA). In early

1995, she left a career as an insurance broker to become

MAVIA's Program Director and first employee. During her

seven-year tenure with MAVIA, she helped create and implement

MAVIA's many national and local programs, including the

acclaimed Washington State model of Day of National Concern

About Young People and Gun Violence, which encourages young

Americans in classrooms and communities across the country to

sign the Student Pledge Against Gun Violence. Currently,

Wieland is serving as Executive Director of Families and

Friends of Violent Crime Victims in Washington State. Wieland

was nominated by Representative Dave Reichert (WA-08)

(6) Allied Profession Award--Michael Davis, President of

Appriss, Inc. Mr. Davis is the cofounder and president of

Appriss, the provider of local, state and federal automated

victim information and notification services and automated

victim protection order services. In 1994, Mary Byron was

murdered on her 21st birthday by her former boyfriend who was

in jail in Louisville, Kentucky. Mary and her parents asked

to be notified if and when he was released, which did not

happen. In response to this preventable tragedy, Davis and

his partner created VINE' (Victim Information and

Notification Everyday), which provides confidential, around-

the-clock notifications to victims about the status of their

offenders. VINE keeps crime victims and survivors informed

and involved in their cases, in turn promoting personal and

community safety. Today, Appriss provides VINE and related

services to more than 75% of our nation. States participating

in the Statewide Automated Victim Information and

Notification (SAVIN) grant program have entrusted Appriss as

their technology provider. Davis was nominated by

Representative John Yarmuth (KY-03).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the pioneering efforts of many, including President Reagan and his 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime, that we are able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Victims of Crime Act. We must remember that the same Constitution that protects the rights of offenders protects the rights of victims of crime in this country as well.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting in resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I'm pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleague, the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) as an original sponsor on this resolution. I want to thank her for her efforts in presenting this to Congress. I would like to thank her for reintroducing House Concurrent Resolution 104 to recognize April as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Every 2\1/2\ minutes a person is sexually assaulted in the United States. Sadly, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men have been victims of rape or attempted rape. Two-thirds of these assaults are committed by someone that is actually

known by the victim, and yet, only about 40 percent of sexual assaults are ever reported to law enforcement authorities.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month attempts to change these startling statistics by promoting education programs, victims support services, advances in DNA and forensics technology, and aggressive prosecution and incarceration of sexual assault offenders.

National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month helps to educate the public about sexual assault in our communities and the long-term effects that it has on its victims.

It also recognizes the work of staff and volunteers at rape crisis centers and other community organizations across the country that provide counseling and victims support services to sexual assault survivors.

With education and community support, it is my hope that more victims will pursue prosecution of their attackers by reporting their assaults to law enforcement. Once victims take this first critical step, it's up to lawmakers and law enforcement to ensure that these violent offenders are put away.

Last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed H.R. 5057, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Program. The legislation was then signed into law on October 8, 2008.

The Debbie Smith program, originally authorized in 2000, awards grants to State and local governments to reduce the DNA backlogs of samples collected from crime scenes and the backlog for entry into the national DNA database. Through these grants, State and local governments received funding to test approximately 104,000 DNA cases between 2004 and 2007.

These grants have also funded the collection of 2.5 million DNA samples from convicted offenders and arrestees for inclusion in the national DNA database. The Department of Justice estimates that over 5,000 ``hits'' or matches are the result of this DNA backlog reduction. This is a positive step forward, but we must continue our efforts to reduce the DNA backlog to provide justice for sexual assault victims and put their attackers behind bars.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in this sterile environment of the Halls of Congress, sometimes we forget that sexual assault is a crime that is committed against people in this country, a crime that most of them never really get over.

In my experience as a prosecutor and a judge for 22 years, I came in contact with numerous sexual assault victims, some of which never could quite handle and cope with the fact that they had been a victim of a crime, especially this crime, because, you see, when the offender commits a sexual assault against someone else, that offender is trying to steal the very soul of that victim. And sometimes victims cannot recover from that, emotionally or physically. That is why this legislation is important and that we, as Members of Congress, do our duty and be the advocates for those victims that have silent voices throughout this country.

And that's just the way it is.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what do six terrorist attacks, Gitmo, dead Americans, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed--also known as KSM--have in common? Waterboarding.

Last week, several top secret national security papers were released to the public. We learned from these documents that waterboarding is apparently saving American lives. After being waterboarded numerous times at Gitmo, KSM, the killer responsible for planning 9/11, started talking. He told the CIA about plans to hijack an airplane and crash it into a skyscraper in Los Angeles and kill Americans. He disclosed the 17-member terrorist cell charged with executing that plan. He also exposed plans of another terrorist cell in New York plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

The enhanced interrogation encouraged KSM to disclose information by naming the ringleaders of four other terrorist attacks. Americans are alive because this individual was doused in water.

Terrorists are not victims. The only victims are thousands of people who have died at the hands of these outlaws. The CIA interrogators have saved American lives by baptizing these criminals in water.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I bring you news from the second front, and that's the border war that the United States has on the border with Mexico down in the southern part of the United States.

I had the opportunity for the last couple of weekends to spend some time with our Texas border sheriffs and the Air National Guard. In fact, I got to fly with the Texas Air National Guard and their helicopters on a mission a couple of weeks ago, and I want to give my compliments and thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Drew Daugherty, Major Bill Taylor, and others yet to be named whose identities should remain confidential.

In any event, we had the opportunity to fly up and down the Rio Grande River at dusk and then at dark to see what has taken place on that border with Mexico. We saw a couple of incidents where individuals had crossed into the United States. They were later apprehended by the Border Patrol. We saw one incident where there was obviously a smuggling operation getting ready to take place on the Mexican side of the river, where we could see from the American side a drug cartel apparently, in my opinion, was loading up duffel bags so that they could move those into the United States. That information was given to the Border Patrol, and I suspect that the Border Patrol apprehended those individuals when they came across the United States. These low- altitude helicopters are very important in the fight against the drug cartels that come into the United States.

There are some issues, however. The Air National Guard, like the National Guard, does not have enough equipment. For this massive 1,800- mile border here in Texas, there are only four helicopters that the Air National Guard has. And when something else occurs in the State like a hurricane or like a fire, those helicopters are pulled off surveillance and they're taken somewhere else in the State.

So the first issue is that we as a Nation should support the National Guard and the Air National Guard in their work with the border sheriffs and with the Border Patrol, the ATF, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and anyone else in the Federal Government that's working to protect the dignities of our borders.

As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity also to be with our Texas

sheriffs. There are 16 counties on the Texas-Mexico border. All 16 of those sheriffs plus four other sheriffs are in what is called the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition. And I talked to those individuals, specifically Sheriff Cuellar, who is the brother of our own Henry Cuellar from Laredo. He's the sheriff of Webb County. Sheriff Sigi Gonzalez from Zapata County, Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County, and Sheriff Oscar Carrillo from Culberson County. And all of those individuals said basically the same thing, that they're concerned about what they call the ``cross-border travelers'' that come into the United States and commit crimes in the United States.

We hear a lot, Mr. Speaker, from all different sources about the crimes in Mexico coming into the United States. We have some that say they do occur. We have others that say, no, it's not really a problem over here. It's difficult to find out exactly what the truth is. So I asked the sheriffs of these counties who are responsible for the safety of their own community. These sheriffs patrol massive amounts of land, and I contacted them and asked them this question: How many people in your county jail are foreign nationals that are in jail charged with a crime in the United States, such as a misdemeanor or a felony, not foreign nationals who are in jail just on immigration violations? And it didn't make any difference what country they were from, but that was the question that I posed to these border sheriffs. And I will give you some of the statistics, Mr. Speaker, tonight.

In El Paso County, one of the largest counties on the Texas-Mexico border, the sheriff's department there said about 18 percent of the people in the county jail are foreign nationals. Hudspeth County right next door, which is a massive county that has really not enough sheriff's deputies, the sheriff told me personally that about 90 percent of the people in his county jail are foreign nationals charged with crimes in the United States. A massive amount of individuals.

Next door in Culberson County, it was about 22 percent. The four counties in the middle, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, and Terrell County, the statistics were not, shall I say, as accurate as the sheriffs wanted to give me; so I'm not going to give that information because I'm not sure about the exact percentage.

But if we move on down the Rio Grande River, and, of course, this is Mexico to the south and this is the rest of Texas up here, just going down the river, we have Val Verde County and about 39 percent of the people are foreign nationals. In Kinney County 71 percent of the people in the county jail are foreign nationals; Maverick County, 65 percent; Dimmit County, 45 percent; Webb County, that's where Laredo is, about 45 percent are from foreign countries; Zapata County, about 65 percent.

And moving on down the Rio Grande River to the Gulf of Mexico here, Starr County, 53 percent; Hidalgo County, 23 percent; and then Cameron County, where Brownsville matches or comes across from the river from Matamoros, about 28 percent.

So, Mr. Speaker, you can make statistics prove whatever you want them to prove, but it shows that people from foreign countries cross the Rio Grande River and come into the United States and commit crimes. These people need to be held accountable for that, and the way to do that is to secure our borders by using the National Guard, the Border Patrol, the sheriffs, the sheriff's deputies, and all the Federal agencies because the first duty of government is to protect our Nation.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our Nation's citizens often depends on the courageous Americans who choose to serve as firefighters. They answer the sound of the alarm every day to protect and to serve.

On April 12, 2009, two Texas firemen were killed in the line of duty while rushing into a burning home to look for an elderly couple. Captain James Arthur Harlow, Sr. and Firefighter Damion Jon Hobbs both served at Houston Fire Station Number 26.

Captain Harlow served 29 years at the Houston Fire Department. He was married to Debbie, and a wonderful father and grandfather. He also liked to hunt and to fish.

Firefighter Hobbs served our country for 10 years in the United States Army, where he just recently returned from Iraq to join the Houston Fire Department. He left behind parents, siblings and his longtime girlfriend, Crystal. The fire that took his life was his very first alarm call.

Mr. Speaker, our country is better because of remarkable Americans that risk their lives to protect us from harm. Firefighters rush to the sound of the alarm to fight the fires that destroy our communities and threaten lives of citizens. Two of those firefighters, James Harlow, Sr. and Damion Hobbs, gave their lives in that sacred duty.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it does us well to remember our American history.

Over 145 years ago, this country was engaged in a great Civil War, from the North and from the South. And during that war between the States, several battles took place not far from this Capital. One took place over in Orange County, Virginia. It's called the Battle of the Wilderness. It had the sixth highest number of casualties on both sides during that conflict.

Just to put it in perspective, it occurred on May 5 through May 7 in 1864, 145 years ago. There were 160,000 troops involved in that battle: 100,000 from the North, 60,000 from the South. That's the number of troops today we have in all of Iraq and all of Afghanistan put together. During that 3-day battle, 29,000 casualties: 18,000 from the Union, 8,000 from the Confederates.

The battle was so fierce, Madam Speaker, that in the wilderness, the woods, where this battle took place during those 3 days, it was so heated, literally, that the woods caught on fire and many soldiers from the North and from the South that were wounded burned to death. Two of the States had the highest casualties, one in the North and one in the South. The highest in the North was from Vermont. The Vermonters sustained 78 percent casualties. In the South the Texas Brigade sustained over 60 percent casualties. On the first day of the battle, the Union troops were able to move the Southern troops back. The second day General Robert E. Lee sent the Texas troops in the middle, and he said that Texans always moved them. Be that as it may, the casualties were high on both sides.

I bring this attention to the House today and to you, Madam Speaker, because all of these casualties, all of these troops that engaged in that battle were Americans and we should not forget that. And that is why we have the Battle of the Wilderness battlefield today. About 900,000 Americans a year go to this battlefield in Orange County, Virginia.

But now we have a problem. The corporation called Wal-Mart wants to build a Wal-Mart on this sacred, hallowed ground.

I have a map of the Wilderness battlefield. It's outlined here. But you see right up here in the northeastern portion where this X is, that's where Wal-Mart wants to profit from these 900,000 people coming into Orange County every year. They have the legal right. The county fathers have said they can build in this location. But we would hope that Wal-Mart would change their mind. And I say ``we'' because Mr. Welch, the good man from Vermont, and I have written Wal-Mart and we have asked them to do the right thing and locate this Wal-Mart 3 miles away from the battlefield.

Now, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure what Wal-Mart's intentions are, but I can tell you their corporate model down in Texas. They build a Wal- Mart. They build it from property line to property line. They lay that asphalt. They build one of those beautiful stores, and a few years later, they abandon that property and move down the road and build another Wal-Mart. I don't know if that's their plan here or not, but be that as it may, they should not build this Wal-Mart in this location.

We've written Wal-Mart. We have received no written response from them. Military historians from all over the world have asked Wal-Mart don't build on this battlefield because that's a part of American history. So far they continue to deal with this and say they're going to.

I support property rights. I support the idea of a corporation making money. No question about it. They now have the legal right to move here. But now they need to make the American decision to do what's best for America and not what's best for this corporation.

Madam Speaker, this land, like other battlefields in our country, is consecrated with the blood of Americans; 29,000. Many are still buried there and known only to God. And we owe them the right to keep this battlefield preserved for history and not to have a corporation like Wal-Mart come in and lay asphalt over their graves.

So we are asking Wal-Mart to do the right thing. Put your Wal-Mart somewhere else, 3 miles down the road, so that this battlefield can be preserved for American history.

Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter that Congressman Peter Welch from Vermont and I have sent to Wal-Mart.

Madam Speaker, it is our hope and our desire that we as Americans preserve the heritage of this country, save this sacred land, and have corporations do the right thing, not only don't build here but maybe donate some of their corporate money to save this land.

And that's just the way it is.

Washington, DC, February 25, 2009.

Michael T. Duke,

President and Chief Executive Officer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, AR.

Dear Mr. Duke: We write to you with profound disappointment

in your company's decision to locate a new store near The

Wilderness battlefield in Virginia and urge your immediate

reconsideration.

While we may represent different political parties and

states on opposing sides of the Civil War, we stand united in

our support of respecting hallowed ground such as The

Wilderness battlefield. The Wilderness, as well as other

battlegrounds throughout the United States, represents the

great struggles and sacrifices our soldiers made to defend

freedoms they cherished deeply enough to risk their lives.

Four thousand men on both sides died and twenty thousand were

wounded during this battle in the spring of 1864. These lands

and lands near them should always be spared from commercial

development. Further, the Civil War Sites Advisory

Commission, formed by Congress to protect the historical

significance of our nation's Civil War sites, has defined

your proposed land for development as part of The Wilderness

battlefield.

There are countless other locations your company could

consider for a more responsibly sited development in this

region. We feel the definition of corporate responsibility

must always extend to respecting storied lands and respecting

a community's natural landscape and surroundings when

choosing a site for a store. Those values should not be

eroded for the sake of commercial gain.

We urge you to listen to feedback you've received from

groups close to The Wilderness battlefield and others who

care deeply about keeping this nation's history and lands

preserved and look elsewhere for development. We look forward

to your response.

Sincerely,

Ted Poe,

Member of Congress, Texas.

Peter Welch,

Member of Congress, Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, when the British Crown initially ignored the Boston Tea Party in 1773 and regarded the participants as rabble, authorities thought nothing would come of the protest. They, of course, were wrong. Early Americans were objecting to the British government for not responding to the concerns of the people.

Now, this year, TEA parties, which means taxed enough already, were held throughout the country where citizens exercised the absolute right under the first amendment ``to peaceably assemble and petition government for redress of grievances.'' Most people seemed to be protesting spending and taxation.

The critics said no one would show up. They, of course, were wrong. Many in the media didn't want to cover the events because, frankly, they were politically opposed to the idea, so they responded by calling the protesters kooks and extremists, sort of like the British calling the colonists rabble and troublemakers.

But thousands of Americans, normal taxpayers who work for a living and not beholden to government giveaway programs showed up to let government know that citizens don't like the government spending so much of their money, borrowing money from China and taxing citizens out of existence. Government would do well to listen.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to be here to pay tribute to a man known by many and whose influence can be seen throughout the world today.

During his life he was president of the Screen Actors Guild; he was a fan of FDR and his New Deal policies; he was a registered Democrat but became a registered Republican; and he was also a member of the media. Doesn't sound like a person I normally would pay tribute to.

However, he was also an Army officer, he served as 33rd Governor of the State of California; and almost single-handedly won the Cold War. He had the eternal sense of optimism. He summarized it best in this quote: ``It's morning in America.''

And today we consider the measure which would authorize a statue of Ronald Reagan to be displayed here in this Capitol. It's a fitting tribute. Ronald Reagan arguably is one of the most influential persons in the 20th century. And there's no doubt that the world is a better place because Ronald Reagan was here. You can just ask the millions of people in Eastern Europe that are free today and have freedom because that wall, as he demanded, came down.

Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era, ``Reagan Revolution,'' as it came to be called, and swept across every aspect of America, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and the judicial branch.

Ronald Reagan pursued policies that reflected his personal belief in the worth of the individual. He stood up for the little guy. He advocated small Federal government and more power to the people to make decisions for themselves and their communities. He believed in the sanctity of the Constitution, federalism, a balanced budget and a strong military. He established policies consistent with all of those beliefs.

Ronald Reagan once said, ``Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation.'' That statement is true, and I believe our children and our children's grandchildren are better off because they're standing on the shoulders of this great American statesman.

And that's just the way it is.