Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in January, Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was tracking drug smugglers on the Mexican-U.S. border. A Hummer apparently carrying drugs crossed into the United States and tried to flee back to Mexico when Aguilar and other Border Patrol agents gave pursuit. Aguilar got in front of the Hummer at some distance and he put spikes in the road of retreat, but the Hummer, rather than go over the spikes, drove off the road, ran over and killed Aguilar, and fled back to Mexico.

The driver was Jesus Navarro Montes. And he fled to Mexico, ditched the Hummer with some friends, but was arrested by Mexican authorities 3 days later and charged with certain offenses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts get a little messy. Montes is the only suspect in the murder of Aguilar, but he has recently been released from jail in Mexico. Some Mexican authorities say he was not in jail for the murder but unrelated smuggling charges. Even so, he was not tried for those charges even though he waited in jail for 6 months.

Mexico also says that the United States has failed to file extradition papers from the United States to Mexico requesting the extradition of this individual Montes. Extradition papers are a legal requirement between countries to bring criminals from one country to another. It's been 6 months, Mr. Speaker, and certainly those papers should have been filed some time ago.

Our Justice Department, however, refuses to comment on whether extradition was requested or the papers were filed. This is a bit odd and curious why our government won't say whether or not they even filed the appropriate paperwork and what the problem is. Did our government fail to file this simple paperwork? And if so, people in our government ought to be fired. This is inexcusable. And if Mexican authorities released prematurely, Mexico has some explaining to do as well. There is obviously incompetence in somebody's government regarding the release of this individual.

Meanwhile Navarro Montes is running lose somewhere in Mexico, laughing at both governments and probably still smuggling drugs into the United States. The Aguilar family still weeps, and they are waiting for justice for the death and murder of their loved one.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. Our government should be as concerned about prosecuting drug smugglers that murder American Border Patrol protectors as they are about relentless prosecuting border agents like Ramos and Compean that were doing their job when charged with violating the civil rights of a drug smuggler on the border. We need some answers, Mr. Speaker, and not blissful silence and excuses from our government. Navarro Montes needs a trial so that justice can prevail because justice is what we do in this country.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, who do we fight against? We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. We heard that we are fighting a war on terror. But what does that mean? Who are the people at war with America?

Now, after all this time, our government has decided we must have a politically correct name for our enemy. No longer can we use the term ``Jihadist,'' the primary meaning being a holy war to subject the world to Islam. After all, using that term might hurt our enemies' feelings.

And certainly the most accurate term, ``Islamo-Fascists,'' is strictly taboo because it might further anger our enemies by insinuating they are a bit radical when they murder in the name of religion.

So the government insists that we call the bad guys ``extremists'' or ``terrorists.'' The term terrorist is so general it could cover a multitude of individuals. My neighbor sometimes calls my Dalmatians ``terrorists''. Does that mean our country is at war with my dogs? I really hope not. The term ``extremists'' could be applied to Global Warming Advocates, Health enthusiasts, NASCAR fanatics or anyone with strong opinions. Are we fighting all these people?

Those terms: extremists and terrorists are so vague they don't indicate the war against us is waged in the name of a radical Muslim religious doctrine. But isn't that the reason for this war?

The term ``Jihadist'' is not a reflection on all Muslims. After all, many Muslims are literally fighting these radical ideas.

In a war, we must specifically define our enemy. Otherwise, we don't know who they are or why they fight.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the speech police are at it again. This time they want to police and control the radio airwaves. I'm not talking about the former Soviet Union that controlled what Russians listened to on the radio, I'm talking about the American speech police.

Radio shows that air conservative ideas in the free enterprise market seem to be listened to by more Americans than those that listen to liberal ideas. I don't know why that is, but it happens. So some don't like that. They say it's just not fair. So they want to force the private radio stations, with the use of the government speech police, to air ideas that are liberal as well as conservative. They call this nonsense the ``fairness doctrine.''

It is actually totalitarian state control of speech. And what does ``fair'' mean? Fair means different things to different folks. In some places in the country like Texas, fair is where you take your chickens to. That's why the word ``fair'' is not in the Constitution. The Constitution protects free speech, not fair speech. It says Congress-- that's us, folks--shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And the Constitution applies to the thieves of free speech and the government's speech police whether they like it or not.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, she was 8 years old. She was asleep in her own room, in her bed dreaming about whatever little girls dream about. She thought she was safe in her home. Suddenly she was awakened by the demon from the night. Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana was on top of her, having his way with her, this petite little angel. Kennedy was someone the little girl supposedly could trust; after all, he was her stepfather.

This little girl was raped. So violent was the rape she fainted and the next thing she remembered she woke up in an ambulance speeding to Children's Hospital.

Official court records state, ``When police arrived, they found the victim on her bed wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. The victim was transported to Children's Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that the victim's injuries were the most severe he had ever seen from a sexual assault in his years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. The injuries required her to have emergency surgery.''

The little girl survived this attack by the barbarian and lives, even though she has been sentenced to a life of mental torture, physical pain and emotional trauma that she may not ever recover from. Her physical scars will never disappear.

The child rapist was tried under Louisiana's law that specifically allows for the death penalty for criminals that choose to rape the most innocent among us, children. The law was passed by the legislature, signed by the Governor and is the wish of the people of Louisiana. A jury of 12 citizens heard the facts and they all agreed that Kennedy should die for his decision to rape his daughter. Several other states, including Texas, have the death penalty as a possible punishment for child rapists.

This case has been reviewed by numerous courts, and has taken 5 years to reach our Supreme Court.

In a decision this week by Justice Anthony Kennedy--no relation--the Supreme Court said the Louisiana law is just too severe and overruled the will of the people of Louisiana and a unanimous jury when he imposed his own moral code saying no one can be executed under these circumstances unless the villain also kills the child, otherwise it is a violation of the cruel and unusual provision of the United States Constitution.

Although the jury was unanimous in ordering the death penalty, the Supreme Court split in its decision 5-4 with the majority siding with the evil-doer.

Justice Kennedy focused on the fact that the victim survived the assault as the reason not to execute the rapist. In other words, the defendant got a break because the little girl had the will to survive.

When I was on the trial bench in Texas, I had a rape victim once tell me that rape was a fate worse than death. In the eyes of this little girl, she probably agrees.

When the ``cruel and unusual'' phrase was put in the Constitution, it was put there and based on constitutional history to outlaw torture and maiming of criminals. As history reflects, States decided what was appropriate punishment based upon these guidelines.

The five justices who sided with the rapist don't seem to have lived in the real world or have real life experiences. They don't seem to provide justice for victims, only leniency for criminal defendants.

I spent 22 years on the felony trial bench in Texas and heard over 20,000 cases. The Constitution was the basis for every decision I made. I saw those charged with the worst acts people can commit, and I saw the brutalized victims of crime. I only mention this experience because trial judges see the world as it really is, not how we wish and hope it to be. Trial judges see real people every day.

Unfortunately, eight of our nine Supreme Court justices do not have the benefit of this experience and have never been a trial judge and seen the effects of crime on people. They have spent much of their time in elite ivory palaces as law school professors and appellate judges removed from the world, second-guessing legislatures, trial judges and juries.

I doubt if Justice Kennedy has ever been to Louisiana or talked to a rape victim or a rapist, or a jury, for that matter. Now Justice Kennedy says the verdict of death is just too cruel and unusual for us that live in a sophisticated society to allow. His ruling is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Justice Alito said in his dissent that the death penalty laws should be allowed for child rape ``if they reflect society's evolving standards of decency.'' The State of Louisiana set the evolving standard for child rapists in Louisiana, and said leave our children alone or face the death penalty.

Society's standard was trumped by five black-robed justices who want it their way. They are wrong.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, who do we fight against? We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. We heard that we are fighting a war on terror. But what does that mean? Who are the people at war with America?

Now, after all this time, our government has decided we must have a politically correct name for our enemy. No longer can we use the term ``Jihadist,'' the primary meaning being a holy war to subject the world to Islam. After all, using that term might hurt our enemies' feelings.

And certainly the most accurate term, ``Islamo-Fascists,'' is strictly taboo because it might further anger our enemies by insinuating they are a bit radical when they murder in the name of religion.

So the government insists that we call the bad guys ``extremists'' or ``terrorists.''

That vague term won't indicate the war against us is waged in the name of radical Muslim religious doctrine. But isn't that the reason for this war?

The term ``Jihadist'' is not a reflection on all Muslims. After all, many Muslims are literally fighting these radical ideas.

In a war, we must specifically define our enemy. Otherwise, we don't know who they are or why we fight.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, forget about the days of judicial restraint. Those are the days when the Supreme Court thought their job was to interpret the law and follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court now has ushered in a new era power grab called judicial imperialism.

Recently, the deeply divided Supreme Court, or the war powers court, as we shall call it, issued a ruling by Justice Kennedy that gave terrorists the right to argue their cases in Federal courts. In this 5- 4 decision, the court held that terrorism detainees captured on the battlefield engaged in war against America now held at Guantanamo Bay prison and other prison facilities under U.S. control have the same rights as American citizens.

When I was at Gitmo prison, which I doubt Justice Kennedy has ever seen, I saw several detainees that had been captured, released, and captured again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans. I'm sure these enemy combatants are partying in Guantanamo prison tonight.

Under the current law, individuals captured as enemy combatants have their cases reviewed by military commissions. It has always been the law under our Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and the President and Congress control war, not the nine justices on the Supreme Court. But the imperialistic war powers court ruled that these military commissions aren't fair enough for enemy combatants trying to kill American troops. It's interesting. These terrorists hate America, hate freedom, hate our way of life but quickly run to American courts to seek redress against Americans.

The five war power judges on the Supreme Court say these poor little misfits should have access to American courts, even though it is the first time in history we have given constitutional rights to combatants against the United States. Even in the War between the States, captured Confederate soldiers who were actually born in the United States were not allowed access to U.S. courts. They were tried by military tribunals. The same occurred in World War II when Nazis were tried by military tribunals. During the Revolutionary War, British spy John Andre was caught on U.S. soil spying with traitor Benedict Arnold. Andre was hung by the Commander in Chief, George Washington, and a military court without any judicial intervention.

So what is next? Are we going to make our boys read terrorists their Miranda rights in the battlefield before they capture them? Justice Scalia was right, Mr. Speaker. In his dissent he argued that this ruling will make the war on terror harder on us and will ``almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.''

The Supreme Court is running roughshod over the Constitution of the United States and changing 200 years of judicial precedent. In fact, at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court explicitly determined in a series of cases that the writ of habeas corpus--that's an action that allows a person to seek relief from detention--does not apply to foreign combatants held outside the United States.

It gets down to this question, Mr. Speaker: Who should be running our wars? Should Congress and the executive branch be in charge of war, or should the Supreme Court, in all of its supreme knowledge, be running the war?

Well, according to the war powers court, they are the commanders in chief of the war. Now what does the imperialist war court want us to do with captured terrorists? Not capture them at all, or let them go so they can kill again?

While terrorists continue to use innocent women and children as shields, continue to bomb our troops, shoot our sons and daughters in the battlefield and behead American civilians and our troops without granting them any rights, the Supreme Court tells us these terrorists ought to be treated

like American citizens. The five imperialist judges on the Supreme Court have asserted the power of the Constitution that is reserved specifically to the executive branch and to the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be, but that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, they say it's not safe to drill offshore because, they say, oil rigs are polluters of crude oil. So the lesson for today is: Where does the oil pollution from off our coasts come from?

Let's keep it simple. This is a chart. This is a chart that shows oil pollution from off our coasts. It comes from the National Academy of Sciences. It gives four sources.

As shown by the blue line, the number 1 polluter of crude oil off our coasts comes from Mother Nature. Sixty-three percent of the crude that has polluted our coasts and our gulfs comes from Mother Nature. It seeps from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico to the surface, 63 percent.

The number 2 polluter, as shown by the green line, is recreational boating. Thirty-two percent of the pollution of crude oil comes from boating.

The number 3 source, shown by the yellow line, appropriately so, is from tankers from overseas, 3 percent. It's those tankers, for example, that come from Saudi Arabia that are polluting our oceans by leaking crude oil, but it's only 3 percent.

As shown by the red line, the little bitty red line, 2 percent of offshore drilling rigs cause 2 percent of that oil pollution.

Let's do it again, Madam Speaker, to make sure it takes.

As shown by the blue line, the number 1 polluter of our oceans and off our coasts is Mother Nature. Sixty-three percent of that pollution seeps from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico to our shores. Mother Nature is the number 1 villain.

The number 2 culprit, as shown by the green line, is recreational boating. It causes 32 percent of that oil pollution off our shores.

The number 3 culprit, as shown by the appropriate yellow line, are rigs or, rather, tankers from other nations such as Saudi Arabia, causing 3 percent of the pollution.

Lastly, the number 4 culprit of 2 percent, as shown by the little bitty red line, are those nasty offshore drilling rigs.

So, Madam Speaker, maybe it's time we look at the facts and realize that

the lesson for today is we should not be punishing America by refusing to drill offshore. Maybe we should drill offshore because we can do so safely and because it has been proven in the past that we can drill safely. There is only a small portion off the U.S. coasts where leasing is allowed, but we know there is crude oil off the east coast, off the sacred west coast and even in other areas of the Gulf of Mexico, so maybe we should drill there as one solution to the problem of high gasoline prices. We need more supply, and this is one way to do it.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the number one polluter of oil off our coast is Mother Nature. Crude oil seeps to the surface, and Mother Nature causes 62 percent of the crude oil pollution off our coast.

So the way we resolve this problem and get even with Mother Nature is we ought to drill where Mother Nature has that oil, take it out from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, and use it to take care of America.

But there is a problem with that. We don't drill anywhere except off my native Texas coast, off Louisiana, Mississippi, and part of Alabama. The rest of this, where it is red on this chart, is prohibited.

It is time for Congress to take the handcuffs off of this inaction and allow leasing off these shores.

Now they say that the oil companies have enough leases; why don't they drill there. The problem is when they drill there, they get a dry hole. And common sense says when they get a dry hole, they quit drilling even though they must continue to pay for those leases.

So it is time to let America take care of America. It is time to let our oil go and take care of ourselves, otherwise this red area that we see here will remain off-limits, and it should be drilled for the crude oil to take care of our country.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 6041.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council was formed to have open, lively debate on the basic human rights of all peoples. However, some Muslim nations have put a strong arm on the council and prevented free discussions of practices that are advocated in the name of religion by a few Muslims. Those practices include female genital mutilation and so-called ``honor killings,'' or murder, of women.

One would think that the mutilation and killing of women would be a front-burner topic with the Human Rights Council. But some Muslims have said this subject is taboo and the discussion of this religious practice and the religious practices of other faiths is off-limits.

So much for the basic human right of free speech.

Those that advocate the mutilation and honor killings of women in the name of religion should be proud of this doctrine of faith and be able to justify it before the U.N. Human Rights Council. But I guess not.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the history of humanity, more murders, tortures, and wars have been justified and done in the name of the world's numerous religions than any other reason or cause.

Reason enough in 2008 to discuss this practice of abusing women.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the New York Times called it the ``nightmare'' killings of Haditha, Iraq, and the ``defining atrocity'' of the Iraq War. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times referred to the incident as the ``My Lai Acid Flashback.'' Another New York Times reporter filed 36 stories on what he called the ``cold blooded killing,'' saying, ``This is the nightmare everyone worried about when the Iraq invasion took place.'' Self-proclaimed expert and ``worst person ever,'' Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, called it ``willful targeted brutality.'' Nation Magazine said of the event in Iraq that ``members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre.'' And even a Member of this House of Representatives said, ``Our troops overreacted . . . and killed innocent civilians in cold blood.''

It has become the largest investigation in the history of Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which has 65 government agents assigned to this one case. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and prosecutor, I have never heard of 65 criminal investigators assigned to one case except the 9/11 attack.

What is the terrible atrocity these news sources are talking about?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Haditha, Iraq, incident took place in November of 2005 when our Marines were attacked by the use of a roadside bomb that exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. The Marines were then engaged in a firefight. Twenty-four Iraqis were killed, including some civilians.

After the gun battle was over and the smoke cleared, our government charged four Marines with murder and four others with not properly investigating the case. In a rabid rainstorm of criticism by U.S. journalists who were looking for the scalps of these eight Marines, the eight Marines were tried by a hysterical jury of journalists in the press and apparently found guilty on all charges.

But normally, Mr. Speaker, in America we try folks in our justice system and give them a trial before we send them off to the hangman and the gallows. Be that as it may, now, 2\1/2\ years after expensive, intense, and thorough investigation, the facts as portrayed by the sensational National Enquirer-type journalists are not as they were portrayed to be.

According to columnist Michelle Malkin, who covered these cases in depth, seven of the eight Marines have had their cases dropped or dismissed. The eighth is awaiting trial in a real court, rather than the court of yellow journalism.

These journalists, ironically, are the same ones wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay prison and are worried about the treatment of those alleged terrorists there who may get cold blueberry muffins for their breakfast. But these writers could care less about the presumption of innocence for these eight U.S. Marines, seven of which have had their cases dismissed already. Only in America does the press get teary eyed about the Gitmo detainees but is blissfully ignorant about the justice in the prosecution of our Marines.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Marines are still in the midst of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and standing vigilant in other places of the world protecting American interests and values. Those values include the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to say anything it wants, even when the press is totally inaccurate and unfair in the expression of those fundamental rights. And for the U.S. Marines, we say Semper Fi. Semper Fi.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, people ask me all the time, ``Do you miss being a judge?'' Usually my answer is, ``No, I enjoy representing the good folks of southeast Texas in Congress,'' but sometimes a case comes along that makes me wish I was back on the bench. Sunday, June 8th was one of those days. As I turned on the news and learned that some outlaw set fire to the Texas Governor's Mansion, my first thought was I hope they send him to my court. My close friend Alton said ``Get a Rope''.

Of course we all know that everything is bigger and better in Texas, but as the news made headlines across the country so did a little Texas history. Our governor's mansion is registered as a National Historic Landmark and is the oldest governor's mansion west of the Mississippi and the fourth oldest in the country. Because Texas has the unique distinction of being an independent country and a state, the history of our governor's residence really started with the first home of the President of the Republic, however that home was short lived.

Nine years after annexation in 1845, the Texas Legislature appropriated $14,500 to build a governor's mansion. The mansion was completed June 14, 1856 and Texas's fifth Governor, Elisha Marshall Pease and his family were the first residents. The historic Austin home beneath the oaks at the corner of 11th and Colorado has housed 43 Texas Governors, and two future Presidents, in its 151 years.

One of the unique aspects of the Texas Governor's Mansion is that its structure has remained virtually unchanged. Under Governor Oscar Colquitt, an addition to the rear of the home was completed in 1914 and renovations over the years have left that floor plan intact for nearly a century. The Greek Revival architecture of the home, with its vast porches and floor-to-ceiling windows are all original to the home's initial construction, making it the oldest executive residence in the United States to function in its original configuration. I told you everything is better in Texas.

After getting over the fact that I wasn't going to get to try this case and charge this villain with everything from arson to treason, I started thinking about my first visit to the mansion when I was 10 years old. One of my heroes, as you all know, was General, President, and Governor Sam Houston--and I couldn't wait to walk through the halls that he walked and imagine that I was him. I remember standing at the foot of his bed thinking it was huge, thinking that General Sam really was larger than life.

I was relieved to learn that Sam Houston's custom mahogany bed and most of the historical furnishings were previously removed for the renovations and spared from the fire. I support the efforts of Governor Perry, the Friends of the Governor's Mansion and all Texans that want to see the Governor's Mansion rebuilt and restored to its former glory. And, I envy the judge that tries the outlaw that recklessly destroyed part of our great state's history.

The last scoundrel to desecrate a Texas landmark got nine years in the penitentiary. Back in 1989, a man by the name of Paul Cullen poisoned the great ``Treaty Oak.'' Of course, I promptly volunteered to try that case as well. The Treaty Oak is the famed site in Austin where Stephen F. Austin signed a treaty with the Lipan Apaches and is thought to be more than 500 years old.

In a deliberate effort to destroy the tree in some kooky scheme, Cullen poisoned it with enough pesticides to kill a hundred trees. And as most criminals do, he bragged about his crime which resulted in his swift arrest and incarceration. The nation was stunned that we sent him to prison for trying to kill a tree, but the Tree was a symbol of Texas.

Fortunately the Treaty Oak survived the attack and while she may not stand as mighty as before, she continues to hang in there as a symbol of strength and perseverance. We rebuilt the Capitol after it was destroyed by fire in 1991 and the Mansion will live to see another day as well. As for the traitorous arsonists, well that is yet to be seen. There's a reason for the saying--``Don't mess with Texas!''

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the Drill Nothing Congress has let another week go into the history books, but no progress has been made on solving rising gasoline prices. Most Americans are for offshore drilling, but the don't-drill-in-America gang says no.

Why does the anti-American drilling crowd think it is wrong for us to drill at home, but it is right for OPEC and the Saudis to drill and sell us crude that costs Americans $425 million a day?

The Drill Nothing Congress says those American oil companies, which they seem to despise more than OPEC and dictator Chavez, have enough leases on Federal land. The problem with that lack of logic is there is no oil on those leases. The land is full of dry holes. It is like trying to lease Death Valley to the farmers to grow corn. It won't work.

The don't-drill group thinks American oil companies make too much money. Little do they know oil companies are owned by millions of middle-class Americans who are called stockholders.

Open up the Outer Continental Shelf. American oil companies will pay millions in lease revenues to taxpayers. Thousands of jobs will be created. America needs to take care of America. Drill offshore.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, due to other Congressional business, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Wednesday, June 18th.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 419, 420, 421, and 422.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, five black-robed judges down the street decided that we weren't doing enough for illegal trespassers.

The Supreme Court just made it easier for illegals to extend their stay in the United States, even after they have been ordered to leave. People like Nigerian Samson Dada, who has been in our country illegally since 1998, can now manipulate and game the system in order to get more time. He has refused to go home, and the Supreme Court basically has said, ``It's okay. You can stay in spite of being lawfully deported.''

The Supreme Court's ruling overturned other court decisions upholding his deportation. In other words, the High Court ruled in favor of people who have laughingly ignored and disregarded our laws.

Once again, the Supreme Court has made law rather than interpret law. The five liberal judges on the Supreme Court who wish to write our laws should take off their black robes and run for Congress. After all, the Constitution I read says Congress should make law, not the Supreme Court.

Contrary to what the Supreme Court seems to believe, our justice system has an obligation to protect the rights of people who follow the law, not expand the privileges of those who are illegally on our land.

And that's just the way it is.