Floor Statements

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

In 2 weeks, teachers, students, alumni and friends of Northern Illinois University will gather to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the tragic shootings that occurred at the university's campus. As you may recall, on February 14, Valentines Day 2008, a gunman stormed a classroom at NIU and opened fire, killing five students and wounding 16 others before killing himself.

Later this year, in April, similar groups of individuals associated with Virginia Tech will commemorate the 2-year anniversary on that campus shooting that killed 27 students and five faculty members. We now know that the shooter was a mentally disturbed individual who was able to purchase two handguns in any event. He brought those handguns to the campus and began a shooting spree that spanned several hours and occurred in both dormitories and classrooms throughout the campus complex.

As we remember the tragic shootings at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech, and think of the violence that occurs in public schools across the country, it is appropriate for Congress to act and provide resources to schools and law enforcement officials to help protect our greatest resource, and that is our children in our schools. School and college campuses should be safe environments for all students to learn. Today, campus security requires much more than ever before, including the campus police, emergency alert systems and emergency response plans.

H.R. 748 authorizes the Department of Justice to establish a National Center for Campus Public Safety to award grants to colleges and universities and other nonprofit organizations. It also provides education and training for campus public safety agencies, and promote research to improve the security of colleges and our universities.

The center may coordinate with other Federal agencies to prevent and respond to natural disasters, incidents of campus violence or even other emergencies. The center also may promote the development of an effective behavioral health threat assessment to prevent campus violence.

In the 110th Congress, Chairman Bobby Scott and ranking member Louie Gohmert of the Crime Subcommittee worked together to cosponsor a version of this bill, which was passed by the House on a voice vote. The Senate was unable to take up this bill last year, so many of my colleagues reintroduced the bill this term. It is my hope that the other body will consider and pass this legislation during the Congress.

Through this legislation and other programs across the country, we can endeavor to prevent violence on our college and university campuses. And I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of

Yes, two.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman from Texas an extra minute.

I will yield to the gentleman 1 extra minute.

Madam Speaker, I have an additional speaker. I yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 738, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2009. As my colleague, Chairman Scott, has mentioned a few moments ago, Congress passed a similar piece of legislation in the 110th Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 directs the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Department of Justice to collect data on deaths that occur in two primary stages of the criminal justice system: First, deaths occur ``in the process of arrest'' or during transfer after arrest; and second, deaths that occur in jail and in prisons.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report that between 2001 and 2006 there were 18,550 State prisoner deaths. Likewise, there were an additional 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43 juvenile deaths between 2000 and 2005

Half of all State prison deaths are the result of heart disease and cancer; two-thirds involve inmates age 45 and older; and two-thirds are the result of medical problems which were present at the time of admission when they were incarcerated.

Although illness-related deaths have slightly increased in recent years, the homicide and suicide rates in State prisons have dramatically decreased over the last 25 years.

H.R. 738 reauthorizes this data collection program and directs the Attorney General to not simply collect the data but to study it, as well as to determine how to reduce deaths in custody in the future.

H.R. 738 incorporates several changes adopted by the Senate during the last Congress. In addition to collecting data from State and local agencies, the Attorney General is now directed to also collect data on the number of deaths that occur in Federal facilities each year.

The bill also ensures that those States that make a good faith effort to report this important data to the Attorney General will not automatically lose 10 percent of their Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants funding if their data submissions are untimely. The collection of this data will help Federal, State, and local governments examine the relationships between deaths in custody and the proper management of jail and prison facilities. It will also provide important information to Congress on how we may need to improve Federal custody procedures.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two additional speakers, and I wish to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to have introduced House Resolution 82, establishing January as National Stalking Awareness Month.

I hope this resolution serves as a unifying force for the community leaders,

policy-makers, and victim service providers. The goal of this resolution is to raise awareness and encourage prevention of stalking by establishing January 2009 as National Stalking Awareness Month.

Stalking, conduct intended to instill fear in a victim, is a crime that occurs in every State in our country. As the cochair and founder of the Congressional Victims Rights Caucus, I have spoken to countless victims and victim service providers about the dangers of stalking and the tragedies that have occurred in their lives.

A January 2009 report from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics found that during a 1-year period an estimated 3,400,000 people in America reported being stalked. According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, this is an increase of 2 million victims per year in the last decade. These statistics are a jarring reminder of the scope and seriousness of this crime.

The Department's study also found that nearly three out of four victims knew their stalker, and approximately one in four victims reported some form of cyberstalking.

Stalkers pursue and harass their victims and are often relentless. Cyberstalkers systemically flood their target's e-mail inbox with obscene, hateful or threatening messages.

Cyberstalkers may also assume the identity of their victim and post information, fictitious or not, to solicit unwanted responses from other people. Although cyberstalking does not involve physical contact with a victim, it is still a serious crime. The widespread use of the Internet and the ease with which hackers can find personal information has made this form of stalking more accessible to criminals.

By establishing January 2009 as National Stalking Awareness Month, Congress can help to educate Americans about the severity of stalking and encourage victims to report these crimes to the police. We recognize and applaud the many law enforcement agencies and victims' services for their effort to combat stalking and increase awareness of services available to stalking victims.

Stalking has only been criminalized for 28 years. Unlike domestic violence stalking is about power and control over the victim. While stalking is now a crime in all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government, stalking often leads to other crimes, including physical assault, sexual assault and sometimes homicide. Stalking laws are basic to the individual right of each person in this country to be left alone and their right of privacy.

The best way to attack the threat of stalking is through law enforcement and education, and I encourage victim service providers, law enforcement prosecutors and community leaders to promote awareness of stalking, and I thank them for their efforts every day in making the lives of victims better.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). He is the original sponsor of the stalking legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to refocus. The purpose of this bill has to do with stalking. A few years ago, most of us didn't even know what stalking was. And now, most Americans know someone or personally have been affected by a stalker out there, whether it's a physical stalker or whether it's someone on cyberspace. It has become a growing crime in this country.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I think the Constitution, in essence, says one thing--that we, as people, as individuals, have the right to be left alone. And criminals who stalk to harass and to put fear in the souls and the minds of individuals should be, of course, prosecuted.

I thank Mr. Royce for his endeavors years ago to make this crime a national crime, and also an awareness of most individuals. So I urge support of this legislation, this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this resolution, which supports the goals and ideals of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week. I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for sponsoring this legislation.

This nationwide effort seeks to increase public awareness and educate citizens about the prevalence of dating violence. The Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Initiative was spearheaded by teenagers across the Nation who chose to take a stand and put a stop to teen dating violence. The Initiative began in 2004, and is now supported by over 50 national, State, and local organizations.

The call to end teen dating violence was formally recognized by the House in 2006. Including today, this body has three times designated the first week in February ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week'' in an effort to bring more public awareness to a problem confronting today's teens.

Last year, an organization called Teen Research Unlimited surveyed parents, teens, and tweens--tween is someone between 11 and 14, Madam Speaker--about dating violence. The results of this poll demonstrated the depth of the problem of teen dating violence.

According to the poll, one in five teens who have been in a serious relationship report being struck in anger--either kicked, hit, slapped or punched--by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Further, one in three girls who have been in serious relationships say they have been concerned about being physically hurt by the individual that they are concerned about.

However, dating violence among children is not limited to physical, emotional, and sexual assault. It can also take on the form of harassment via computer or cell phone text messaging or e-mail. In fact, 40 percent of the tweens who have dated now know friends who have been called names, put down, or insulted via cell phones or social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week provides an opportunity for parents to engage their children about dating violence and abusive relationships. The Teen Research Unlimited poll indicates that parents often do not know that their children are in relationships, let alone abusive relationships.

More than three times as many tweens--20 percent--as parents--six percent--admit that parents know little or nothing about the dating relationships of those tweens.

I encourage parents to use this week to talk with their children about dating and violence. To start the dialog, parents or teens can call the National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline at 866-331-9474. The Helpline promotes awareness of healthy dating relationships by making vital resources available to help teens experiencing dating violence and abusive relationships.

I encourage my colleagues to support this House resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on this bill. I urge its adoption. Once again, I want to thank Mr. Lewis from Georgia for sponsoring this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Coach Mack Brown and the Texas Longhorn football team had a great football season. The Longhorns played tough all year, winning 12 games, and losing only once. Among their wins, I would like to especially congratulate them on their victory on a neutral field over Oklahoma; a rivalry that has existed since 1900. With Texas beating Oklahoma again, it further extends the all-time series lead to 58 wins for UT to only 40 for OU.

For the University of Texas winning titles, championships, and individual awards are nothing new. The Longhorns have a rich tradition of conference titles, National Championships, and Heisman trophy winners. You can ask any player and they will tell you that just having the opportunity to play for the University of Texas is the dream of every football player in the great state of Texas. UT players are almost all from Texas, but occasionally an out of state player has the privilege of making his way onto the Longhorn team.

This year there was once again controversy surrounding the BCS. There were several teams including Texas that had legitimate claims to be the team playing for a National Championship. I personally think Texas and the ``BCS National Champion Florida Gators'' should have a real national playoff game and determine the National Championship. Only through a playoff system can we have a true National Champion every year. NCAA Division II and Division III have a football playoff system that works quite well.

While Texas beat Oklahoma, they were snubbed for the Big 12 Conference title game, which meant they had no chance to play for the National Championship. In addition to this, many felt Colt McCoy should have been given more consideration for the Heisman trophy. With everything that the Longhorns had to endure, it could have been enough for any team to just throw in the towel and give up. However, Coach Mack Brown kept his team focused and committed to their motto, ``Texas Fight.'' UT went on to play a very good Big 10, Ohio State team in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. In a thrilling game, Colt McCoy led a ``Heismanesk'' last minute drive and connected with Senior Quan Cosby for a 26-yard touchdown that gave Texas the win, 24-21.

You need to only look at the upbringing of quarterback Colt McCoy and receiver Jordan Shipley to see the character the Longhorns are made of. Both Colt and Jordan's fathers were teammates and roommates while playing football at my Alma Mater, Abilene Christian University. Brad McCoy was a receiver and Bob Shipley was a running back. After Bob and Brad graduated from ACU they kept in touch, raising their two families together. The two families regularly attended church together, went fishing, and other family activities. Both Brad McCoy and Bob Shipley instilled work ethic, faith in God, and leadership qualities into their two boys.

The character of these two resonates through the whole Longhorn team. They are Texas--a team committed to each other, their coaches, and the University.

Madam Speaker, University of Texas football is as much of a part of America as the flag and apple pie. It is almost a religion in the burnt orange state of Texas.

I commend the Longhorns and coaches for a great season. I look forward to another successful year in '09 along with the 59th win over Oklahoma. Hook'em Horns!

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the big fat cat executives of Citigroup are busy spending taxpayer bailout money on a brand new luxury jet.

That's right, Madam Speaker. Citigroup claimed it was on the brink of financial disaster, then demanded and took $45 billion from the taxpayers through government giveaways. Now they're buying a new $50 million jet. And did I mention this swanky jet is made in France?

Madam Speaker, the arrogance and ignorance of the ``Big Banking Boys Gang'' is astonishing. While average Americans are hunkering down worried about their jobs, food, clothes, and mortgage payments, these irresponsible executives are blowing millions on high-dollar toys.

It's about time the elites in the financial industry quit acting like

they're entitled to special perks. Americans shouldn't be forced to pay for CEO bonuses and luxury corporate jets for the rich and famous robber barons.

But you see, Madam Speaker, they must need that jet to fly to New York Mets games because Citigroup is spending $400 million to plaster its name on its new stadium, Citi Field.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the name Air Force One really says it all, doesn't it? It's the number one plane--the most sophisticated and advanced piece of aviation technology, designed specifically for our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. It's a national symbol.

Since the inception of Air Force One, it has been made in, of all places, America. Now it seems that the Pentagon thinks it would be better for a foreign company to build the next flying White House--a French company at that. Well, excusez moi, but that just ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, if anything should be made in America, it ought to be the most important military aircraft we have. The Pentagon wants to let the French, the French-based Airbus, to have a crack it at it. But, au contraire, mon frere.

I have filed the Air Force One Built in America Act to ensure that Air Force One is made in America by Americans. Outsourcing Air Force One is not an option. It's un-American. If the Pentagon has their way, au revoir, American jobs and national security. What's next? Are we going to replace the American apple pie with crepes?

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, they say we have to spend more money that we don't have to stimulate more spending by the American people. This is supposed to save us all from economic chaos. I think I'm missing something here. How does borrowing money just to spend it help out the citizens who not only have to come up with the money in the first place but also have to pay the interest on the government's shopping spree?

This stimulus package, which filters money to special interest groups, will cost $825 billion. But if we add up last year's so-called stimulus package that didn't work, and all the bailouts to the special interest groups, like the big bank robber barons, the Congressional Budget Office says we will have to borrow all the money to pay for it. That means a total of an additional $2 trillion in deficit.

So, Mr. Speaker, how does borrowing money just to spend $825 billion make sense? Why don't we just not spend the money in the first place. Let all Americans have an across-the-board tax cut, those Americans that do pay taxes, and let them decide how to spend their money. Cut the corporate income tax, then businesses can stimulate the economy by hiring more workers.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen because the mindset in the United States now is that the government is smarter than the people. So government saves us all from ourselves.

Thomas Jefferson knew better. He said a long time ago, ``I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the money and labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.'' Oh, I wish we'd have listened to Thomas Jefferson. If this prediction is true, then there are going to be a lot more unhappy Americans because wise ole Uncle Sam is planning to spend our money in the name of stimulating the economy.

Here are a few examples in the $825 billion stimulus package. I like this one. The National Mall is going to get some new grass that will cost $200 million. That is about $1.5 million per acre. Mr. Speaker, what kind of grass is that? Gold-plated AstroTurf? I'm sure that spending this money will help the economy way down there in Dime Box, Texas.

Here's another one: $726 million for after-school snack programs for school children. I'm sure our school kids need more snacks at taxpayer expense, but does anyone really think that will help the economy? Probably not.

What is $825 billion anyway? Well, since Uncle Sam doesn't have the money left in his bank, that means every man, woman, child, and illegal in the United States will have to eventually come up with $2,700 apiece to pay for Uncle Sam's spending appetite.

All this stimulus package does is put us more in debt to China, which weakens our dollar and our national security. The government needs to put the money back where it belongs, in the hands of the people who earned it. Let Americans decide how to spend their money. After all, it doesn't belong to Uncle Sam.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, they say the economy is going into the abyss because government doesn't spend enough money.

Even though the stimulus packages of last year didn't work and the billions to bail out the elite robber baron banks hasn't been effective, the government solution is ``Let's spend more money,'' like $850 billion. That's almost a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars stacked up in $20 bills is 3,000 miles high. That's the distance from D.C. to Peru. All this money will be forcibly taken away from taxpayers.

This bill gives earmarks to special interest groups like millions of dollars for the National Endowment of the Arts, millions for fancy cars for government bureaucrats.

Why not do this: Don't spend taxpayer money! Don't go into debt with China. Cut taxes for everybody that pays taxes, and let Americans decide how to spend their money and not our greedy, big bloated brother, the government.

Government cannot tax, borrow, and spend our way into prosperity. It has never happened. This bill isn't economic stimulus. It's old fashioned squeaky piglet, pork barrel politics that will poison the pocketbook of every American.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I bring you news from the second front. The second front is the border war on the southern border of the United States between America and Mexico.

It is important that America understand that there is a violent atmosphere in Mexico, our neighbors to the south. It's a possibility that the government may collapse. There is chaos, there is high unemployment, and much of the blame goes to the drug cartels that are operating in Mexico. They are violent; they are mean; they have a lot of money; and it makes no difference who they kill that gets in their way to smuggle that cancer into the United States.

This should concern all of us. We cannot wait for the reaction of the violence along the Texas-Mexico border, especially, to come into the United States. We must be proactive and not wait for Americans to be killed before our country does something about it.

You know, our country protects the borders of other nations, nations that many Americans don't even know where they are on the map. But the first duty of government is to protect our Nation and protect our borders, especially from those narcoterrorists that come into the United States habitually.

Even the Department of Homeland Security now has actually admitted that there is a problem on the border. For so long, in my opinion, Homeland Security has done very little to protect our border in the southern part of the United States.

But Homeland Security has developed a plan involving the U.S. Northern Command to deploy the United States military to protect American citizens in the event the drug wars in Mexico spill into the United States.

Just last year, there were over 5,300 murders in Mexico, that's more murders in Mexico than the number of American troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan put together, and it's all because of the drug cartels and the violence that has occurred there.

I have had the opportunity to be on the Texas-Mexico border and the border all the way to California that we have with Mexico. I have been there many times, and every time I go, it's worse. The violence is terrible.

There used to be a time when Americans would go to Nuevo Laredo across the river from Laredo. Not any more. The three drug cartels are fighting for turf in Nuevo Laredo to smuggle drugs into the United States.

I want to read, Mr. Speaker, a portion of a military report that I have obtained from November 25, 2008, from the United States Joint Forces Command. It states that Mexico ``bear[s] consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,'' because ``its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels.'' ``Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response

based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.''

What this military report by our military says is the Mexican government could be on the verge of collapse because of the drug cartels. It should concern us that our neighbors to the south are having this problem. It's important to America that there be a stable government in Mexico and that we get a grip on the drug cartels and not wait for crimes to be committed in the United States, but immediately send our military to the United States-Mexico border so we can take care of those drug dealers that come into the United States.

A border sheriff once told me that the drug cartels that come into the country, have more money, have better equipment and more people than he has to fight them off. Now is the time to be prepared and send our military there to protect the integrity of the United States border.

It's important that we help Mexico, but, Mr. Speaker, I am not one that favors giving blanket checks to Mexico as we have done in the Merida Initiative, $1.5 billion we have sent down there in equipment and money. Unfortunately, it may happen that that equipment be used by the drug cartels against our border protectors. It's important that we reinforce this side of the United States border and be prepared for any action of the drug cartels that come across the border from Mexico and figure out other ways to help Mexico.

Border security is the number one issue in this country. It is time to secure our borders. The fight has already begun. We have to be engaged in this and protect the people of this country from the drug cartels.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, as a final act by President Bush, border agents and political prisoners Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were granted a commutation of their harsh prison sentence.

Thanks to the work of many Members of Congress, some in the media, and, most importantly, the American people, this case would just not go away. The agents were relentlessly prosecuted for doing their job on the violent Texas-Mexico border when they tried to stop a drug smuggler from escaping after bringing in $750,000 worth of drugs. They received 11 and 12 years in the penitentiary while the drug dealer was given immunity.

But this case is not over. President Obama will be asked by some Members of Congress to grant a full pardon. Also, legislation will be introduced to make it clear to Federal judges and rogue prosecutors that the requirement to add additional prison time to a person that carries a weapon in a crime shall not apply to peace officers because they have to carry weapons. Also, justice will not occur until the American people find out why our government was on the wrong side of the border wars and prosecuted this case in the first place.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, well, it has finally happened. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, in one of his last acts as President of the United States, commuted the sentences of political prisoners Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean who were just doing their job down on the violent Texas-Mexico border when they were prosecuted because they happened to shoot a drug dealer who was smuggling in $750,000 worth of narcotics.

It is good that President Bush has commuted their sentence. We hope to press further with the new President, President Obama, and get a complete pardon for these two individuals. But there already has been an effect of this commutation. You see right away, the Mexican government, in its self-righteous indignation, disapproves of the commutation of Ramos and Compean. Obviously, if the Mexican government is opposed to it, President Bush did the right thing. And who cares what the Mexican Government thinks about the United States enforcing its dignity and enforcing the rule of law and keeping drug smugglers from Mexico out of coming into the United States. So that was obviously the right decision if the Mexican Government is opposed to President Bush's decision.

But also, it will have an effect, hopefully, on our border agents. You see, since this case and other cases where our Federal Government chooses to prosecute border protectors instead of prosecuting criminals who come into the United States, like drug smugglers, since that has occurred so often, our border protectors have been reluctant to enforce the rule of law. And when they see a situation on the border from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, that may turn out to be violent, they have backed off. And the reason they have backed off is because our Federal Government refuses to protect them when they get themselves in a scrape protecting us and the dignity of the United States. Now maybe our Federal Government will prosecute criminals, drug smugglers, human smugglers who come into the United States, emphasize prosecuting them rather than emphasizing prosecuting Border Patrol agents who are doing their job just to protect the rest of us.

One statistic, Mr. Speaker. Last year, 2008, 1,097 violent assaults were committed against American Border Patrol agents on the southern border of the United States. Of course we don't read about that in the newspaper. We only read about the drug dealers who

get shot by our Border Patrol agents. So 1,097 violent assaults against people who we send down to that violent border to protect us from criminals that are coming into the United States. Three a day occur, and we can suspect that probably three a day have occurred this year. It is important that our government prosecute those assaults, those people who commit crimes against our border agents when they sneak into the United States, many of them to commit crimes in the United States.

It has also gotten so violent on the Texas border that a local sheriff in Hildago County, Lupe Trevino, has issued automatic weapons to his sheriff's deputies, and has told them to use those weapons if they are fired upon. That is a new policy. That is how violent the border is, and they are all down there just protecting us.

One of the reasons they protect us is because of America's unfortunate but tremendous greed for illicit drugs. And because we have an appetite for narcotics in this United States, the drug dealers are willing to supply them. That is another issue. This country has to get around to solving that appetite that we have as a Nation for illicit drugs.

So we have that appetite and we send our Border Patrol agents down to the border to keep those drugs from coming into the United States, and then if one of them gets in a scrape, we prosecute them rather than the drug dealers. Maybe those times have changed because of this commutation. I certainly hope so.

And we certainly can't expect the Mexican Government to do their part. We hear constant reports of corruption in Mexico, especially with Mexican officials on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande River. That is unfortunate because they have an obligation to protect Mexican citizens as well as we on this side have an obligation to protect American citizens.

Border protectors need to know we support them. Back in the days of Vietnam, some of us remember those days when our troops came home, how they were treated. They were treated with utmost disrespect, unfortunately. And we have changed. Our country has changed. We show great respect to our troops that are in Afghanistan and Kosovo and Iraq, and we should because they are protecting us.

Our border protectors down on the border, our Border Patrol agents and our border sheriffs, need to know that America stands behind them as well because they are fighting a war just as important and just as violent as those troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting. And they need to know that we will support them when they do their job, when they enforce the rule of law to keep people out of this country that are coming over here to smuggle drugs. Our Federal Government needs to get on the right side of the border war.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, this Saturday in Humble, TX, the eight children, numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Martin Lewis Wisenbaker are celebrating his 100th birthday. This Texan has played many roles in his accomplished life including athlete, farmer, deacon, husband, and father and he doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.

Martin Wisenbaker was born in Graham, TX on January 17, 1909, and by the age of 16 he had settled in Humble, TX. He started out working in the rice fields of southeast Texas until he was hired by Hughes Tool in 1929.

Just 4 years later Martin met the woman he would marry and spend his life with, Miss Wesley Belle Lee. Over the years they had eight children, including two sets of twins. In addition to his job at Hughes Tool, Martin had his own dairy farm and sold milk to local families.

In 1944 the family joined the First Baptist Church in Humble. Martin would go on to be baptized in the church and even serve as a deacon starting in 1960. Even with all of his commitments, Martin still found time to pursue another passion: sports. You could find him playing tennis or baseball and he even won a local tennis tournament and played 3rd base for the company baseball team.

After 38 years with Hughes Tool, Martin retired at the age of 62. His retirement years were spent with the church bowling league. Over the years Martin added numerous bowling trophies to his tennis and baseball awards. After winning many times over at the Senior Olympics and a bowl of 200 on his 92nd birthday, Martin was forced to give up the sport when he was 99 years old due to knee problems.

In July of 2008 Martin lost his wife, Wesley, just after their 74th anniversary. They spent their last days together in the Park Manor facilities in Humble, where he still resides.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday that room will be filled with Martin Wisenbaker's loved ones who are no doubt celebrating the life of a great man who was born before the Titanic sailed, experienced the Great Depression, saw the first Olympic Games, lived through two world wars, entered the new millennium and watched as the U.S. was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

I want to commend Mr. Wisenbaker on a long life of hard work and service to his community. Congratulations to him and his family on this extraordinary achievement.

Mr. Speaker, oh, how things have changed. Time was, when you borrowed money from a bank, the bank wanted to know what the money was going to be used for, and you were required to fill out a bunch of forms to receive that money.

Now the big banks have shown up, wanting $350 billion from the taxpayer. They won't tell us what they will use the money for, and they haven't filled out any paperwork to justify receiving more taxpayer money. You see, they don't want the same standards they require on borrowers to be applied to them when they want money.

It used to be the bad guys robbed the banks. Now it appears that the banks are the bad guys by putting a financial gun to the people, saying, ``Give us the loot or you're all going to die economically.''

It's like bank robbery in reverse. It seems like the big banking boys' gang is robbing the people. We call all of this nonsense a bailout, but bailouts have not helped stimulate the economy. Why don't we just say, ``No''? No more money to special interest groups. No more taxpayer money will be spent without accountability. No more spending money we don't have. We cannot spend, borrow and tax our way out of this economic calamity.

And that's just the way it is.