Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Francis Scott Key is best known for being the author of our National Anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' During the second American revolution, the War of 1812, the British reinvaded the United States, captured Washington, DC, burned this building, the White House and most of this city.

The English then set sail for nearby Baltimore and were determined to take the city, but Fort McHenry was blocking and protecting Baltimore Harbor. Key, a lawyer, had boldly gone on board a British ship to seek release of a captured United States citizen. The Royal Navy held both Key and his client and refused to release either until after the British naval attack on the fort was completed. During the night, the British bombarded the fort with hundreds of shells and rockets, but at ``dawn's early light,'' the American defenders still held the fort, refusing to surrender, and a massive 30 foot by 40 foot American flag still flew defiantly over Fort McHenry. The unsuccessful British sailed away. Francis Scott Key, upon seeing the flag, wrote our national anthem that was sung this past 4th of July throughout the prairies and plains of America.

But, Mr. Speaker, Key also has a Texas connection. Before Sam Houston made his way to Texas, he served with Andrew Jackson in the Indian wars and was elected United States Congressman for Tennessee for two terms and served as Governor of Tennessee.

After his governorship, Houston spent time in Washington, DC, during the 1830s advocating on behalf of the Cherokee Indians and denouncing the corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In 1832, Congressman William Stanbery from Ohio made slanderous accusations about Houston and the Cherokees on the floor of Congress. One morning, Houston was leaving a boarding house on Pennsylvania Avenue and saw Stanbery walking down the street. A confrontation occurred between the two men over Stanbery's statement. A street brawl resulted. Sam Houston thrashed and viciously beat Congressman Stanbery with his hickory walking cane for Stanbery's derogatory remarks on this House floor. Stanbery then pulled a pistol and put it to the chest of Houston, but the pistol misfired. Mr. Speaker, fate saved Sam Houston's life.

The United States Congress ordered the arrest of Sam Houston, charging him with assault and demeaning a Member of Congress. Houston was tried before Congress in a joint session with the Supreme Court acting as judges. The trial lasted a month. Houston spent one full day on this House floor in boisterous oratory stating his positions, that he was defending his honor; Stanbery was the aggressor; and anyway, Stanbery deserved the severe caning.

So what does Francis Scott Key have to do with any of this? Francis Scott Key was Sam Houston's defense lawyer. He did an admirable job in the defense of this later Texas hero, but after the trial was over, Houston was found guilty, publically reprimanded and ordered to pay a $500 fine. Houston refused to pay the fine and, rather than face more problems with Congress, left Washington that same year and began a new life and political career in Texas. And the rest, they say, is Texas history.

General Sam Houston was the successful commander of the Texas Army during the Texas War of Independence from Mexico in 1836. After defeating Dictator Santa Anna on the marshy plains of San Jacinto, Houston became the first president of the Republic of Texas. After Texas was admitted to the United States in 1845, he was a United States Senator and then Governor of the State. Houston is the only person to serve as Governor and Member of Congress from two different States.

Sam Houston's troubles with the legislative bodies continued, however. When Texas voted to leave the Union in 1861, the Governor, Houston, refused to take the oath to support the Confederacy. So the Texas legislature removed General Sam from the office of Governor. Too bad. Maybe if Francis Scott Key had been Sam Houston's lawyer before the Texas legislature, the outcome might have been different.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the unfair ``Broadcast Fairness Doctrine'' has reappeared. It is an attempt by the feds to force radio stations to be fair and balanced by forcing broadcasters to air opposing views of public importance. Sounds good, but who's going to determine what fair is, the Federal fair police?

Are we going to let a bunch of Potomac River bureaucrats determine if a radio station in Tomball, Texas is being fair when it discusses politics? Sounds like government control of speech to me. And fair means different things to different folks. It's too subjective a word for us to even agree on.

The Fairness Doctrine would not even promote public discourse. It would, in fact, force radio broadcasters to do away with controversy and maybe go to airing 24-hour music like Willie Nelson's greatest hits. Oops. Someone here might say Willie's not fair and balanced.

Anyway, the Constitution is clear. Congress, that's us, shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. You notice, it doesn't guarantee fair speech.

Our forefathers wrote that first amendment to prevent government control of our free speech. So this Fairness Doctrine is neither fair speech, free speech or constitutional speech.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, a new inductee in the Judges Hall of Shame is Judge Roy Pearson of Washington, DC.

It seems that Judge Pearson suffers from the arrogant ailment known as ``black robe disease.'' But instead of issuing a bad ruling, Pearson filed an absurd lawsuit.

Claiming his dry cleaners did not live up to their claim of ``satisfaction guaranteed'' when a pair of his pants were lost, Pearson decided to sue them for $54 million. The part of the story that makes Pearson even more despicable is that the dry cleaners did find his pants two days later and gave him $150 for his trouble. Pearson took the money all right, but he didn't want his pants back.

At the trial, the judge admonished Pearson, who represented himself, for being completely unprepared in his own case. On Monday, Judge Pearson got a taste of his own medicine when the trial judge not only dismissed the case against the cleaners, but is also making Pearson pay the court costs and $100,000 attorney fees to the immigrant owners.

The cleaners lost his pants, but now he is losing his shirt, as it ought to be. Shame on Judge Roy Pearson for his abuse of our legal system. Courts work to right actual wrongs, not award money to people who are just too big for their britches.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, due to delays in air travel coming back from my Congressional district yesterday, I was one of six Members on a flight that was delayed by several hours in arriving to Washington, DC. I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall votes Nos. 549 and 550.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Border Patrol agents report that illegals and drug smugglers are entering the United States through our national forests. They are setting forest fires at the border, at patrol stands and watch towers, attempting to smoke out the agents and divert their attention from the illegal crossings.

National forest firefighters have reported seeing illegals and drug smugglers move right on through fires as the firefighters try to put out the fires. Once assaulted with rocks, cars, guns, now agents must worry about fires. And these arsonist illegals are not just stopping at setting those fires. Reports indicate some illegals have engaged in throwing Molotov cocktails--a crude bomb made from gasoline--at our agents.

The border war has escalated. These new invaders are not the migrants in search of a better life, they are violent land burners who will do anything to invade the United States, including assaulting U.S. border agents.

There is a wildfire of illegal crossings at the border, and the Potomac amnesty-for-all crowd is fiddling the violin of blissful ignorance while the border burns.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, it is written, ``Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or bridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.'' Of course, this is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And Mr. Speaker, it is first because, without these first principles, the rest of the following amendments are meaningless. These are rights that Americans take very seriously, particularly in regard to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

There are some in Washington, D.C., however, that feel if someone is saying something they don't like, they ignore this freedom of the right to speak and try to control speech. This is where the so-called Fairness Doctrine comes into play.

In the early 1940s, the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, established the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It was instituted in an attempt to ensure that all broadcast station coverage of controversial issues be fair and balanced. This mainly applied to radio stations. This means allowing equal time for each side on an issue. If a radio station wanted to talk about the need to secure the borders, they would have to grant the same amount of time to individuals who wanted open borders.

The Fairness Doctrine was considered by many journalists a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. And I agree with this assertion. It even led many journalists to avoid reporting on controversial issues to protect themselves from having to report on the other side of the issue. This led to the opposite effect of the doctrine that the FCC had intended. It actually stifled free speech.

So, by 1987, the FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine, realizing the gross error in their ways in total disregard for the freedom of speech. There have been several attempts by speech-control advocates to reenact the Fairness Doctrine, and all of these attempts have continued to fail. But this decision still does not sit well with many in Washington, D.C., who feel that broadcast talk radio is one-sided. What it really means is that talk radio largely boasts conservative views and not liberal viewpoints. Liberal radio doesn't go over well with Americans, and these stations generally fail financially and with the American listeners. So the critics of conservative radio

have started a movement to eliminate conservative talk radio unless equal time is allowed for liberal viewpoints. Basically, they want a reinstatement of the unfair Fairness Doctrine. But what the critics may really be irate about deals more with illegal immigration than it does with talk radio, because that is the current controversial issue on talk radio stations.

Since their voices are so rarely heard in Congress, the American public has come to express their opinions by talk radio, especially on this issue of illegal immigration. The backroom, closed-door meetings the Senate has had to reach a deal on amnesty that the American public certainly doesn't want has encouraged talk radio shows to inform the public of this absurd nonsense of amnesty.

Talk radio has been one of the only vehicles that has kept the public informed about the ``give America away'' amnesty program and the political pandering and preference policies for illegals that the Senate bill is advocating.

So because the amnesty crowd doesn't like what they hear on the radio, they want the Federal Government to control this speech by forcing radio stations to give them free air time. If the liberals don't like talk radio, it is patently unfair to force radio stations to pay for and give away air time to them. You see, liberals can't make their case on their own radio station because no one listens to them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution protects free speech, not equal speech. Congress is to make no law abridging the freedom of speech whether we like the speech or not.

It's simple, Mr. Speaker, speech is to be free, not fair. Fair is too subjective a word. Our grandfathers guaranteed us free speech, not fair speech, and there is a big difference.

Congress is to stay out of the controlling of speech business because it says so in the U.S. Constitution. Our ancestors wrote the First Amendment mainly to protect two types of speech, political speech and religious speech. Those are the most controversial of all types of speech and the most important types of speech. That's why they are protected in our Constitution.

By trying to regulate what is said on the airways, the Federal Government and the speech police are speaking out of line.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 35: Page 33, line 11, insert after the dollar

figure the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 41, line 10, insert after the dollar figure the

following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, new Colorado State law requires local law enforcement agencies to report illegals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities when those individuals are jailed for crimes. Then the Feds are to deport these criminals back to their countries after they serve their sentences, but there is a problem.

The Federal Government doesn't deport these criminals. According to a Colorado newspaper, 37 out of every 38 illegals that are convicted and are reported to ICE for deportation are just released back on the streets of those towns. What does this mean for homeland security, for citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants? It means criminal illegals, instead of being sent home by Uncle Sam, are set free to roam our communities, to continue to steal, rob and hurt people.

Colorado police are doing their job, but, once again, when it's time to ante into the pot, the Federal Government folds its hand.

Instead of our Government trying to figure out ways to keep illegals in the United States with these amnesty giveaway plans, it ought to figure out ways to deport criminal illegals back to where they came from. Once again, our Government is missing in action.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the Lonestar Voice this week comes from Geoffrey Brown of Baytown, Texas. Here is what he has to say:

``We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border. They don't get paid enough wages. They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do. They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language. They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day. No, I'm not talking about illegals; I'm talking about our troops. Doesn't it seem strange that the (politicians) are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and have threatened to defund them?''

Geoffrey Brown echoes the sentiments of many other Americans who wonder why so many people in Washington show more concern for illegals

who pledge allegiance to other countries than they do our U.S. troops fighting in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan.

Supporting the American military and our veterans is more important than expensive giveaway programs to illegals.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment with me. I'll be brief because I don't think many Members here need to be convinced that we need our Government agencies to enforce the laws we give them and that they aren't arbitrary.

Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the State Department to discontinue the issuance of visas to nations who fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered removed by our Government.

Unfortunately, this step by our Government has never been taken. Why? The gentleman from Colorado and I joined on a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ask this very question. The chart I have here indicates the response we received and I quote:

Department of Homeland Security Response: ``While visa

sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act may be an effective tool in obtaining

repatriation cooperation, the severity that makes them

potentially effective also has the potential to negatively

impact other U.S. foreign relations objectives if not used

judiciously. When considering the use of 243(d) sanctions,

DHS must consider the potential repercussions to U.S. foreign

policy. Because the United States is pursuing a number of

initiatives with China on foreign policy issues, implementing

Section 243(d) sanctions could have counterproductive

effects.''--Donald H. Kent, Assistant Secretary, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, January 10, 2007.

Mr. Chairman, how this reads to me is that our trade with nations like China is more important than providing for the safety of the American people. Many of the people who we are trying to remove are hardened criminals, violent felons that we want off our streets. Because of two recent Supreme Court decisions, our government is limited in the length of time we can hold them in our jails while working to remove them. If we can't remove them in 6 months, they are to be set free. Now how many are we talking about here? As this chart shows, here are the top offending countries and the number roaming America:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and felony court judge in Texas, I tried a lot of cases where the victims of homicide were peace officers. Like any victim, these officers came from all ages and all races. The murder of a peace officer is one of the most serious crimes that can occur in any community.

Unlike other victims, Mr. Chairman, peace officers carry the daily burden of protecting their communities from crime, everything from petty theft to the most violent and vicious of crimes. Every day these defenders of our cities put their lives on the line. They have asked to be in harm's way, and then when one is killed in the line of duty, their loss is deeply felt by the entire community.

There are cases, however, when peace officers are killed and their killers happen to be immigrants from foreign countries, some legal immigrants, some illegal. And there are many cases where the home countries of these immigrants refuse to send them back to the United States to face their charges

once they are requested to be extradited to the United States from their home country.

In 2002, a Los Angeles County sheriff was murdered by a Mexican citizen who was illegally in the country. However, the Mexican government refused for 5 years to extradite him to the United States to stand trial, and it only occurred this January when the charge was reduced.

The same occurred in Denver in 2005 when a police officer by the name of Donnie Young was murdered, and only after the charges were reduced was the killer extradited back to this country.

Killing police officers seems to also be a popular pastime for a few immigrants in Texas. In my hometown, a Houston police officer by the name of Rodney Johnson was shot four times and killed by an illegal immigrant in September of 2006. In fact, the last three law enforcement officers shot in Harris County, Texas, were shot by people who were illegally here in the United States.

Fortunately, each of these killers were captured before they fled to their home country, and they will have their day in court. But what about the ones that don't get caught and flee to some other country? This problem is only increasing in States that border Mexico, where travel across the border is easy; and now violent drug cartels rule the area and certainly have no qualms about shooting at American peace officer.

So this country should not be spending money toward admitting immigrants to the United States from any country that refuses to allow the United States to try police killers by harboring those killers in their country.

I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me, along with the Fraternal Order of Police that has endorsed this amendment, to support limiting funds in this bill to be used for issuing visas to nationals or citizens of countries that have notified our State Department of their refusal to extradite to the United States an individual indicted for killing a peace officer in this country. We owe this to our peace officers and their families.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the chairman's concerns about this amendment, but it will be an effort to, of course, get those people back in the United States who are charged with the specific crime of killing a peace officer.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this bill increases funding in the Foreign Operations bill to foreign countries almost at 10 percent. And as already stated, most Americans did not get a 10 percent increase in their income last year, but yet we are going to spend money in foreign countries. And much of this money is waste, total waste that Americans should not be funding at all. It gives money also to nations that constantly and consistently vote against us in the United Nations.

It's important to note, however, none of this funding decrease will affect aid to our strongest ally to the Middle East, Israel; money that is well spent for the security of not only Israel, but the United States.

So, increasing funding in this Foreign Operations bill is not acceptable. All we're doing in the gentleman from Ohio's amendment is to put in it at last year's level, and that's a good idea.

Madam Speaker, in 1984, President Reagan signed the 21 minimum drinking age into law, saying ``This problem is bigger than the individual States. It's a grave national problem, and it touches all our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power. I'm convinced that it will help persuade State legislators to act in the national interest to save our children's

lives, by raising the drinking age to 21 across the country.''

Now, there are some that are advocating--lowering the drinking age back to 18. These people are unfortunately choosing what is easy over what is right and what is effective.

It would be easy to allow 18 to 20 year olds to drink, but we would pay for it with lives. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, looked at 49 high-quality, peer-reviewed studies of places that changed their drinking age and found conclusively that moving the drinking age up to 21 decreases alcohol-involved crash fatalities by 16 percent and lowering it increases fatalities by 10 percent.

New Zealand is a good example of this. In 1999, New Zealand lowered its drinking age from 20 to 18. Not only did the alcohol-involved crash rate increase among 18 and 19 year olds, but also among 15 to 17 year olds. It is absurd to think that this would not happen in the United States were we to take the easy path.

It would be easy to think that teaching young people to drink would increase responsible drinking habits, but what is easy isn't what is true. Most European countries with lower drinking ages have not only higher drinking rates, but higher binge drinking and intoxication rates. Several of these countries, like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada, are considering increasing their drinking ages because the 21 minimum drinking age is so effective.

It would be easy to assume that 18 to 20 year olds could drink safely, but in truth, all underage drinking is unsafe drinking. Brain research shows us that the brain continues to develop into the early twenties. The part that controls reasoning and cognitive ability is the last to mature and thus the most vulnerable to damage. The part of the brain responsible for new memories is noticeably smaller in youth that abuse alcohol. Alcohol use in the teen years also is associated with decreased brain functioning, memory, movement, and attention, and these changes may be permanent.

These and many more reasons are why a host of experts, including the CDC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, General Accounting Office, Institute of Medicine, Surgeon General, National Institute of Health, and more, support the 21 minimum drinking age.

It is necessary for us as legislators, parents, and responsible citizens to take the hard path and prevent our young people from accessing alcohol--adults facilitate, by selling, giving, providing, or allowing youth access to alcohol, almost all underage drinking. It is necessary to set limits, not open the liquor cabinets. And it is necessary for us as leaders to ignore those who think you can try the same experiment twice and get less fatal results.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, firefighters are a special brand of people. When others are fleeing burning buildings, firefighters suit up and charge head first into the searing infernos and blackening smoke, not stopping until that beast is tamed. They go where others fear to tread.

In Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday night, firefighters were called to a blaze at a local furniture store. As they were trained to do, they entered the engulfed building. Moments later, without warning, the roof of the furniture store collapsed, trapping and killing nine firefighters.

Last night, at 7:00 p.m., 24 hours after the tragedy, at 30,000-plus fire stations across the plains of America, firefighters stood in reverent silence for their brothers. This devastation in Charleston is the single greatest sacrifice of American firefighters since 343 of them were killed on September 11.

This Nation's firefighters are ordinary citizens armed with extraordinary bravery and dedication to the public. When danger occurs, most run from the danger, but America's firefighters are not like most. They run to the danger.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, before I came to Congress, I had a career in public service in Texas, first as a prosecutor for 8 years. I was a chief felony prosecutor and tried felony cases in Houston, Texas. And then I assumed the bench for 22 years and tried felony criminal cases and heard over 25,000 felony cases.

And I say that to say during that time, both as a prosecutor and as a judge, I heard cases where peace officers were the victims of crime and

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 51: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Sec. 6__. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to provide an immigrant or non-immigrant visa to a

national or citizen of a country the central government of

which has notified the Secretary of State of its refusal to

extradite to the United States any individual indicted in the

United States for killing a law enforcement officer, as

specified in a United States extradition request.

Mr. Speaker, in the days of the recent past, when a child was sexually assaulted, the criminal justice system continued to victimize the child, because the victim was bounced all over town relating the story to numerous strangers.

Sometimes a child, when interviewed at the police station, actually came in direct contact with the offender. Also, the child could wait for hours in the same county emergency rooms as other victims of stabbings, car wrecks and overdoses.

But times have changed. There are over 680 child advocacy centers in the United States, including one in Houston, where victims go when assaulted. At the center are trained police, therapists, doctors and lawyers that are experts in dealing with children. Here the child is helped before the trial, during the trial, and, yes, after trial.

The National Children's Alliance, led by Nancy Chandler, is the umbrella organization that helps these 600-plus centers throughout the Nation. All these child crusaders are in Washington this week working to make our land safer for kids.

America is grateful to these members of the victims' posse that help protect our greatest resource, children. After all, it shouldn't hurt to be a kid in the United States.

And that's just the way it is.