Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the energy policy this Congress has passed recently. This Congress has decided to spend a lot of taxpayer money and subsidize this concept of corn-based ethanol in the United States.

We are sending a lot of money to farmers to grow corn so that it can be burned in our vehicles. Now, I don't blame the farmers for what they do. After all, we have encouraged them to produce corn-based ethanol.

But the problem with corn-based ethanol is it is a pollutant. Now we are finding out from Science Magazine that it's a pollutant more so than was first thought from the beginning. Because of the subsidies, we are encouraging corn-based ethanol.

It also has raised corn prices throughout the world because no longer are we eating corn, we are burning it in our vehicles. It has increased the amount of land that we are tilling up, grasslands, for example, forest, for example, and turning it into agricultural land where we produce corn-based ethanol to burn in our vehicles.

It's also expensive. Everything that has to do with corn products has raised in prices over the last 2 years because we are not using corn in our foodstuffs, we are burning it in our vehicles. But probably the greatest problem with corn-based ethanol is how it's produced. Corn is one of those commodities that takes a lot of fertilizer. In fact, it takes more fertilizer to produce corn than any other product that we eat, such as rice or wheat or even the grasslands.

Because that fertilizer is being dumped in the Midwest, it drains off in the rivers down the Mississippi River and comes into the Gulf of Mexico. One would argue, so what? Well, the problem with that is, fertilizer has nitrogen in it and phosphorus. That nitrogen and phosphorus, when it goes into the Gulf of Mexico, has created what is called now a dead zone.

It's called a dead zone because nothing lives there except algae. The fish, the ones that are there, have died unless they have moved way offshore, you know, out there off the continental coast where we don't drill for crude oil any more.

This map here shows, this is a NASA map, satellite photo, shows that it's about 470 miles along our gulf coast, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. It even goes all the way to Florida, but it also extends out in the gulf about 178 miles.

It's a dead zone. Nothing grows there. Nothing lives there but algae, and it's all because Congress with unintended consequences is encouraging the production of corn-based ethanol, and the fertilizer goes down the Mississippi River and kills everything in this area. Madam Speaker, it stays for years. It gets bigger every year, this dead zone. It kills off the fish, and all of the fishermen along the gulf coast are having to go way out in the Gulf of Mexico out there where we don't drill for crude oil anymore, and they have to fish to get fish for Americans to eat.

Congress needs to reevaluate its policy of depending on some product that now not only is a pollutant but is an expensive pollutant, and it also creates havoc in the Gulf of Mexico by causing a dead zone. We need to be aware of such unintended consequences when Congress passes legislation.

Madam Speaker, we need an energy policy. We need an energy policy now--Americans demand it--but we also need some common sense in what we do, and maybe we should rethink the whole concept of corn-based ethanol because, after all, Madam Speaker, it's not going to save us all.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, better known as NASA, has been an ubiquitous aspect of American life since its inception in 1958. This organization brought the United States supremacy outside of the atmosphere and took us to the moon. They reinvigorated the imaginations of children who applied greater concentration to their studies of math and science. Recent accomplishments, such as the International Space Station and many unmanned probes, have been less in the public purview, but have extended scientific knowledge into the realm of what was previously thought to be science fiction. NASA, contrary to popular belief, was not the inventor of Velcro or Tang, yet it has managed to stay in the lives of Americans despite its lower profile by creating critical elements of some of the most important technology in use today. NASA helps to lower food prices by increasing food production five-fold based on research done on growth in outer space. Their design technology helps manufacturers to create cars, the electric guitar of favorite bands, planes, and skyscrapers. NASA created the temper material that is used in Tempur-Pedic beds, prosthetics, and many wheelchair seats. They are responsible for imaging technology that allows CAT scans, advanced MRIs, and new infrared mammograms that increase detection rates by 98 percent. They even made the needles with small silicon chips that reduce the need for invasive surgery when performing biopsies. NASA created the necessary technology for pacemakers, portable dialysis machines, and programmable insulin pumps which use digital telemetry. Laser eye surgeries are performed with the technology that enables the shuttle to dock with the space station. They are responsible for blood pressure monitors, heart monitors, and laser angioplasties. Bringing it closer to home, NASA created scratch- resistant lenses, polarized sunglasses lenses, and the satellite communication technology which brought about cell phones. The roads America drives on have grooves cut into them because NASA realized that it would help reduce hydroplaning, which has contributed to an 85 percent reduction in wet weather traffic accidents. Robotics, world- wide search and rescue systems, space blankets, light emitting diodes or LEDs, cancer treatments, and the list goes on and on. Describing, or even mentioning, all of them would be a feat that would result in a book hundreds of pages long. In fact, NASA is forced to pare down all of its technological inventions to its top 40-50 each year in its annual publication Spinoff. A world without the technologies developed by NASA would be one without your digital camera or your iPod. NASA may not have sent a man to mars, yet, but they may be taking us all along with them when they go.

Mr. Speaker, the Drill Nothing Congress is still determined to drive the price of gasoline up by not allowing offshore drilling for crude oil and natural gas.

Americans think we are held hostage by OPEC and dictator Chavez for our crude oil, but the real culprit is Congress. Congress holds the keys to freedom from OPEC and the little dictator, but will not unlock the big door to independence.

Congress should lift the offshore drilling ban in the Gulf coast, the east coast and even the sacred west coast. Then let each State and its people decide whether or not to drill off their shores.

Congress should let States receive a portion of the oil lease revenues oil companies pay Uncle Sam for the privilege to drill and States to use this additional revenue to fund education or whatever they wish.

The Drill Nothing Congress seems to want gasoline prices to continue to rise to punish Americans for driving gasoline-powered vehicles. Congress is the problem. In the court of American public opinion, Congress is wrong for its hardheaded, absurd policy of don't drill in America. Meanwhile, gasoline continues to rise in price.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, last November a fleet of Japanese whalers set sail to kill more than a thousand whales, including endangered humpback whales for the first time in the last 40 years.

After international outcry, Japan agreed not to hunt the humpback whales this year, but that has not stopped them from continuing to hunt and kill more than a thousand minke and fin whales.

You see, although an international moratorium against commercial whaling has been in effect since 1986, Japan and a handful of other countries have used a loophole in the international treaty, and in the name of pseudoscientific research, they have gone ahead and killed more than 11,000 whales.

After killing them for ``scientific research,'' as they say, they sold the whale meat and blubber on the commercial market.

Anyway, scientists in the field say that these hunts, conducted in the name of science, are really unnecessary because nonlethal research alternatives do exist.

Mr. Speaker, Moby Dick is in trouble, and it is time to close the loophole and make sure that endangered whales in our oceans are protected once and for all. In Herman Melville's book ``Moby Dick,'' Captain Ahab, who I think was from Massachusetts, died trying to kill off the whale population. Hopefully Japan's desire to eliminate the whale population, like in Moby Dick, will fail as well, and Japan and a handful of other countries will cease the whale hunts that are taking place.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like Indiana Jones is at it again. This time the search is on for the secret underground tunnels of Egypt.

The United States Army in Texas is training Egyptian soldiers to locate and destroy underground tunnels used by criminals to smuggle arms from Egypt into the Gaza Strip. Our troops are out there teaching digging techniques to the Egyptians looking for the lost treasure tunnels of guns and rockets. We are doing this to help protect the borders of Israel and Egypt.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-Mexican border is still porous for underground smuggling. Since 9/11, more than 40 smuggling tunnels from Mexico to the United States have been discovered. Last year, the DEA located a high-tech, sophisticated concrete tunnel 85 feet underground filled with two tons of drugs. Law enforcement expects there to be more tunnels found.

Rather than just protecting the borders of other nations by training Egyptian tunnel raiders, maybe we ought to send the military to protect our own southern border from the underground secret tunnel invasion of guns, drugs and people coming into the United States without permission.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, in 1814, Francis Scott Key wrote of a star- spangled banner which America ``so proudly hailed . . .'' through a night of bomb blasts and rocket-fire. The flag consisted of fifteen stripes, alternating red and white, and fifteen white stars on a field of blue; it united a brand new Nation under the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the 194 years since our national anthem was written, we've come a long way--Old Glory has acquired 35 more stars, and has become the most recognized flag in the world. But its power to unify a nation hasn't changed. Our flag has become synonymous with Freedom, Justice, Prosperity, and all the principles upon which our great Nation was founded.

On this, the 58th National Flag Day that our nation has celebrated, let's fly our flags with reverence in honor of our men and women who have given their lives, and for those who continue to fight to defend our great Nation.

For a country whose trust is in God, our flag is a precious reminder of how we've gotten here as well as a beacon for which we strive.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6003 and commend the bipartisan leadership of our House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for taking the first steps towards developing true high speed rail service in America. This bill takes a historic step in the right direction towards developing additional transportation options for Americans faced with congested roads and airspace. It will also bring us up to par with European and Asian high speed rail networks.

High speed rail will have ways of connecting people to their place of business, homes, and commercial centers in ways never thought imaginable. I especially support Section 503 of this bill which calls for a study that may consider expanding the existing South Central Corridor that goes through Texas to include the greater Houston region. One day, it could be a reality that 70 percent of Texans, those who live in the greater Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio regions could commute reasonably, perhaps as quick as an hour and a half each way, between those cities to work, visit family, attend entertainment venues, sporting events, fairs, universities, museums, hospitals, and connect to international airports in ways often more timely and efficient than airline travel.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, this year the Poe folks welcomed two new Texans to our brood, making me a proud grandfather of seven. With each new addition, I think back to my grandfathers and the influences they had on me growing up. While they came from very different backgrounds, their impressions on me as a child set an example of what a father, grandfather and man should be.

My mom's father was a lanky, fiery red-headed German who was as hard- headed as he was strong. Theodore Otto Herman Hill, or ``Thunderhead'' as he was more appropriately known, was born in 1899. His Prussian grandparents immigrated to the United States through Galveston in the early 1800's and settled in the growing German community in Texas to begin a new life.

I remember him as being very set in his ways, very militaristic in his daily routines. He was meticulous in everything he did and as a result, he did most everything well. Like the Army, he did more before 6 a.m. than most anyone I knew. He arose early, worked hard with his hands all day and reared three girls, he called ``the boys'' to work the cotton fields with him.

Papa was a hunter, a taxidermist and a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. He found hundreds of Apache and Comanche arrowheads on his land that he organized and that were later donated to the Texas Ranger Museum.

He was the frontiersman type. He could tell the type of tree by looking at the bark or observing the leaves and predicted the weather by just looking at the sky and watching the habits of the animals. And as most men of his generation, he was tough. The only thing I think he was ever scared of was my grandmother--an equally fiery German. Theodore is a long time family name that has been passed on to my son and grandson.

My dad's father was of Scots-Irish descent and a man of many hats. He was adopted by a neighboring family at the age of six after his single father decided to move on without him. As a young teenager, he ran away from the only real family he knew and set out to start a life for himself. I loved hearing his stories, some sounded like tall tales. Grandpa, a snake-oil salesman of sorts, rode the rails all over the country, selling anything and everything to earn a buck.

After meeting my grandmother in his late teens, the two married and he settled down to raise a family. He became the local Assistant Postmaster, worked on the railroad and was a barber. He opened his own barber shop next door to the local bank and became so involved in the banking business that he ended up running the place. During the Depression he loaned farmers money on a hand shake. That job took him to Pearland, TX, where he started another local bank and sold real estate on the side. Interesting enough, although he was a banker he always paid cash and thought credit cards were a bad idea for average Americans. The concept of rest and relaxation was not one he could appreciate. He was tinkering with something every day of his life. He was an electrician, plumber, made furniture and had a huge garden. He was a leader in the local Church of Christ and never missed a service until his death.

He never let the fact of his abandonment as a child be an excuse for anything.

Grandpa lived to be 88 years old and he and my grandmothers were a large part of my life and my kids' lives. Papa was tragically killed by a drunk driver in the 1950s while laying asphalt for the Texas Highway Department. Because people married so young back then and their kids married young, I got to spend far more time with my grandparents than most kids do today.

Neither of my grandfathers made it past 7th grade, but were far wiser than most men I know. While both very different, they both embodied the very traits that define men of their generation. They were the fathers of the Greatest Generation. They believed in hard work and providing for their families even in the depression--no excuses. They taught their children and their children's children the value of an earned dollar, pride in hard work, respect for their elders and a love of God and country.

I am so thankful to have known these two men and wish there were more like them today. They were good men, good examples, good fathers and inspiring grandfathers. Happy Father's Day.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the anti-crude oil crowd has an ethical dilemma. You see, they don't want to drill for crude in Alaska, they don't want to drill offshore, especially off that sacred west coast. They don't want any refineries to produce that crude into products. They are just against all this nonsense. After all, they say, crude is the demon of the Earth.

However, they don't have a problem with using everything that comes from crude, like gasoline that comes from crude off the Texas east coast, refined in American refineries. And it seems to me that the irrational non-drillers should lead by example, rather than being hypocritical by preaching damnation to crude oil, but using its by- products every day. So no more plastic water bottles, no using insecticides, no more fertilizer, medicine, candles, nylon, paint, makeup, perfume, computers or detergents. No more car rides or plane rides, and no more home heating oil come winter. After all, all of these things come from crude oil.

The radical don't-drill folks should literally walk the walk, instead of talking the big talk about how they are going to save us all from that demon crude oil, but sanctimoniously use its products every day.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, with all the gloom, doom and despair about the high gasoline prices, there is a remedy to this pessimistic pump panic. Before we start passing out bicycles to the multitudes or start going to Dr. Phil for therapy, we can and should obtain more crude oil here in America. Crude oil will still be the driving energy of this Nation for the foreseeable future until we find some alternative. And we don't need to line the pockets of OPEC and Third World dictators by begging them for more crude. We already give them $425 million a day!

The U.S. Geological Survey has released a report that says the ``sweet crude'' oil find in the Williston-Bakken Basin is larger than first believed. It is enormous. According to the report, it is over 500 billion barrels, and it is located in the Dakotas. It is 15 times larger than the oil in the Alaskan North Slope.

America needs to take care of America. We need to remove the silly restrictions that prohibit drilling. We need to drill in the Badlands of the Dakotas; remove the offshore drilling ban; drill in Alaska; and we can cure this pump panic disease.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on this initiative. However, I rise in opposition to this legislation before the House. As a former prosecutor and longtime judge in Texas, I am concerned about drugs and violence on the border, but I am also concerned about corruption.

According to the DEA, 500 people were murdered in Nuevo Laredo in 2005. None of those cases was solved. Many of those murdered were police officers. There have been 400 kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo. Forty-one of them were American citizens. None of them have been solved.

I doubt if anyone would be surprised to find out that the drug cartels are to blame for most of the violence on the border. What you might be surprised to learn is that U.S.-trained Mexican forces are behind some of the attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has reported that in the last 10 years, there have been over 250 incursions by suspected Mexican military units into the United States.

In order to gain control of access corridors in the United States, drug cartels are hiring hit men from an elite force in Mexico's military. This group is known as the ``Zetas.'' It has been reported that some of the Zetas are military deserters that may have been trained in the United States at the former School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Reports claim that these forces were sent by the Mexican Government to the United States-Mexico border to combat drug trafficking. Instead, some of them deserted and became assassins for the Mexican drug cartels. Officials suspect that there are more than 200 Zetas. Between January and September of last year, nearly 5,000 Mexican soldiers deserted. Many of them went to work for the drug cartels because they pay more money.

The bill before the House today would authorize $1.5 billion in money, training and equipment over the next 5 years to Mexico. Most of that amount, more than $1 billion, would go, as I said, to Mexico. And Mexico in its arrogance objects to any conditions we want to put on this money. The administration can offer us no assurance that our equipment and training won't be used against us and neither can Mexico.

These forces are violent. They kill people and are a danger to the enforcement of our border, especially to our sheriffs. We've tried to work with Mexico in the past to stop drug trafficking. Every new president talks about how they are going to stop the drug trade, but it never has worked. Why should we send $1 billion to Mexico when we have no idea whether the goods we send will end up in the hands of corrupt Mexican officials and be used against us? Rather than sending all this money and equipment to Mexico and the lawless Mexican officials at the border, we ought to be equipping United States border sheriffs who can use this equipment to protect our homeland. We need to keep our money on this side of the border where we need it and where we can keep up with it.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Madam Speaker, the United States has gone to war numerous times to protect the sovereignty of nations. Sixty-four years ago on June 6, thousands of GIs went ashore in France because its borders were invaded by the Nazis. In fact, most of the European countries and north Africa had their sovereign borders overrun by the Nazis.

In the Pacific, the United States fought the Japanese because they had invaded the borders of our territories and the borders of China and Indochina. Americans died. Over 400,000 died protecting all of those borders during World War II.

After World War II, the United States defended the borders of Western Europe nations against that ``evil empire'' of the Soviet Union and Soviet Communism. In fact, we still have troops in Western Europe. Sixty years later, we still defend those borders. And that is a long time. Then there was the Korean War. In its aftermath with 50,000 Americans killed, we fulfilled our commitment to defend South Korea, and we still have 30,000 troops on that border with North Korea, 50 years plus defending someone else's border. We defend the borders of Iraq and part of the Balkans even to this day.

But Madam Speaker, I wonder why we don't have the same commitment to America's borders? Doesn't that bother anyone? Having been to the southern border of the United States numerous times and seeing the ``Maginot Line of Indifference,'' I am puzzled why we seem to ignore the thousands of trespassers, or invaders, if I can use that term, that come from all nations and cross our border without permission.

When Mexico invaded the United States at Brownsville, Texas, in 1846, we went to war to defend the southern border. When the outlaw, now folk hero, General Pancho Villa and his bandits came into the United States from Mexico to commit crimes in New Mexico, the United States sent General Blackjack Pershing to go after him, even if it meant going to Mexico.

That was during a time when our sovereignty was important to the Nation and to the Federal Government. But the invasion now is much worse. Some estimates put the number of illegals in the United States between 15 and 35 million people. Why don't we have the same moral resolve we had in World War II and Korea to defend our borders from this stealth invasion? It is the duty of government to protect the citizens of this Nation and the States.

I will read from the Constitution, something we probably ought to do more of in this Congress. Article IV section 4 of the United States Constitution says, ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against invasion.'' Invasion means intrusion or encroachment. Why doesn't the Government just simply follow the Constitution and prevent invasion into the United States?

Now some Chamberlain appeasers want to just tell the illegals they can stay. After all, we can use the cheap plantation labor, the appeasers say. Never mind the crimes some of them commit, never mind how they take some social services without paying for them, never mind how some live off Americans and lawful immigrants. Never mind it is illegal to be in the United States without permission.

So why, Madam Speaker, do we defend the borders of other nations but not our own? The Feds say they are trying. But the proof, or the lack of it, is in the results. The border with Mexico is violent. The border is porous, and the border is being invaded. The most powerful nation in the history of the world can stop the secret invasion if it first had the moral resolve to do so, and second, the courage to do whatever is necessary to stop the onslaught of invaders.

Maybe we should even use the National Guard or returning troops from Iraq on our southern border. But doing so would take leadership that is committed in word and deed to protecting the sovereignty of this Nation.

The United States is worth it, Madam Speaker, even if the amnesty crowd and Mexican President Calderon doesn't like it.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are alarming events that keep occurring regarding crude oil spills that seem to go unnoticed by the environmentalists and the media. Off the gulf coast, and even off the sacred west coast of California, crude oil spills have become so noticeable that scientists can see the sources from satellites. Can you believe it? The culprit should be sued and brought to court because that is what the environmentalists do to save us from the nasty crude oil. The offender is Mother Nature.

You see, Mr. Speaker, thousands of metric tons a year of crude oil naturally seep to the surface in the Gulf of Mexico and off the west coast. Mother Nature is the cause of most offshore crude oil spills, and this must be stopped. Why don't we just remove all that crude oil that is seeping from beneath the ocean? That will eliminate oil from coming to the surface. The way to do that is to drill offshore, take out all that oil from underneath the ocean, and stop Mother Nature from polluting.

Congress needs to remove the silly offshore drilling restrictions to give us more supply. That will help bring down the price of gasoline, stop pollution, and we can teach Mother Nature a lesson or two.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the second front. The second front, of course, is the border we have, the southern border, where there is a war going on. It's a border war between the United States and those people who wish to enter the United States illegally.

During my travels to the Texas/Mexico border and, really, the southern border with Mexico, I've traveled all the way from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas meeting with the various law enforcement officers. Of course I've met with the Border Patrol, but more recently I've met with the sheriffs along the Texas/Mexico border.

Let me make it clear. The Border Patrol does as good a job as we will let them do. They patrol the first 25 miles inland into the United States. But that's all they patrol. And if an illegal individual, no matter who they are, comes into the United States and gets past that 25-mile marker, it's up to somebody else to patrol that area. And much of that time it's left up to the sheriffs throughout the States of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.

The sheriffs patrol the entire county. And let me give you an example. When a crime is committed in a county, a person calls 911, and 911 transfers them to the Sheriff's Department, not to the Border Patrol, because it's not important at the time where that crime or where that criminal came from.

And many times those criminals are cross-border criminals. They come into the United States from all over the world to commit crimes and then flee back across the southern border. And it's up to the sheriffs to protect the citizens of those counties.

Just to give you an example of a couple of counties, I've visited with Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County. That's way over here in West Texas. That's a county that's the size of Delaware. And Sheriff West, like most of the 16 border sheriffs along the Texas/Mexico border, they look like sheriffs from Texas, they act like sheriffs from Texas. But, to a person, they are relentless in protecting their communities from criminal conduct.

And much of that conduct is the result of the failure of the United States of America to protect the border from people coming into the United States without permission. It is the duty, the first duty of government, to protect us from invasion by any source and by any means, and that includes anyone that comes into this country without permission.

Most recently, I've gone all the way to the other end of Texas, down to Cameron County, Texas where Brownsville is. It's a unique county because most of that county borders water, either the Rio Grande River or the Gulf of Mexico. And I've watched, and I went down with Sheriff Omar Lucio and some of his deputies who also are a relentless bunch of Texas deputy sheriffs trying to protect the border.

He, like Arvin West on the other side don't have a big budget for vehicles. So the way they get vehicles, Madam Speaker, is they have to confiscate the drug dealers' vehicles, those SUVs. And then once those are confiscated, they use those because they don't have enough money to fund their own transportation on the border.

As Sheriff Lucio said, the drug dealers, the drug cartels outman them, they outspend them, and they outgun them. That's because they have more money than we have on this side of the border.

And to give you an example of how the drug cartels work, and how it is very difficult for the sheriffs and the Border Patrol to stop the invasion of the drugs, down here on the Texas/Mexico border, the Rio Grande River is about as wide as this House of Representatives. And planes fly in from Mexico. They fly out into the Gulf of Mexico, come straight in across the Gulf of Mexico and the border of the United States, and they drop their cocaine, marijuana, and then other drug mules pick that up and move that throughout the United States on these interstates that are depicted on this map.

So it's important that we give the border sheriffs the resources that they need. And part of that can come from the Merida Initiative. The administration has offered and is promoting the idea of sending $1.4 billion in equipment and training to the other side of the border, to the Mexican side to fight the drug cartels.

Good intentioned, but in all due fairness, the history of Mexico along the border is not good. There is corruption, and many of the military and the police have started working with the drug cartels, some of whom have been trained in the United States have gone over to the other side. Maybe that money would be better spent if we left it on our side of the border and gave that money to the sheriffs to patrol this entire area.

We should give the sheriffs surplus military vehicles that have come back from Iraq and let them patrol all this area, because you cannot patrol this part of Texas with a Prius. We have to use some type of SUV or pickup truck. And it's important that we do this. The number one duty of government is public safety.

Madam Speaker, June 6, 1944, the anniversary is tomorrow. We sent thousands of Americans over the lands and over the seas to protect the borders of countries that had been invaded. France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and other nations, and it's the duty of our country to protect us from the invasion coming south of the border.

We should send the military to the southern portion of our border and have the moral will to stop the invasion into the United States.

And that's just the way it is.