Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, after spending last week with the Terrorism Subcommittee hearing testimony from the people who live and work on our southern border, the realization of the problem for failure to protect the border from invaders was dramatically told by border agents, local law enforcement, and citizens.

Those who pretend we have no insurgency into America live in the Never Never Land of ignorance. Testimony showed that individuals in Mexican uniform, driving Mexican vehicles, still cross into our soil. Human smugglers and narcoterrorists operate fearlessly on our southern border.

Border Patrol Chief Reynaldo Garza put it clearly, ``We do not have control of our border.'' This phrase should alarm even the border- appeaser crowd who take the side of illegals over Americans.

Former Texas Ranger Doyle Holdridge put it best when discussing what it is like on the Texas-Mexico border after sunset. He said, ``It gets western.''

Yes, it is lawlessness on this border that breeds violence, gunfire, drug trafficking, human smuggling and is a ripe place for terrorists to operate. It will continue to get western on our border until border security becomes a national security issue.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, due to other personal business, I unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Wednesday, June 28, 2006.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Number 333, ``yes'' on rollcall Number 334, 335, 336, 337, and 338, and ``no'' on rollcall Number 339.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today strengthens security at our borders. This amendment will require a universal document, a passport, to enter the United States.

Now, people from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean islands can enter the United States with a host of documents, including baptismal certificates or no identification at all.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 acted on the 9/11 Commission recommendations and mandated that all travelers entering the United States present a passport or some other type of identification and citizenship documents when entering the United States beginning January 1, 2008, thus eliminating the current Western Hemisphere passport exception loophole that allows U.S. citizens and nationals of other countries in the Western Hemisphere to present little or no documentation of their identity and citizenship when they cross into our country.

Implementing this simple statutory requirement has been difficult. Over the last couple of years, the State Department has spent a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer money to come up with documents that are alternatives to passports to comply with the law under their Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The question is: Why are they going to other documents?

They are doing so because of pressure from outside groups who say passports cost too much, or that they will stifle commerce, which, of course, is not true. This efficient document is a universal document and will actually streamline the crossing of people from Mexico and Canada into the United States. To date, there has been no agreement between State and these groups on the type of alternative documents that will be accepted, and it is unlikely they will come up with some type of alternative document before the deadline.

Essentially, these outside groups have been successful in persuading Congress to consider delaying any changes until they get these types of documents; threatening to kill implementation of the Terrorist Prevention Act and leaving America wide open for maybe another terrorist attack. An example of this has already been found in section 135 of the recently passed Senate immigration bill, which postpones the deadline for compliance until alternative documents have been issued.

Why other types of identification? Why set up a new bureaucracy to issue them? We should use the passport.

Mr. Chairman, we already have a document that denotes citizenship and identity to comply with the law, and it can be used to meet the deadline. It is called the passport. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel of identification? The State Department should be using its resources to reduce costs and expand the issuance of passports and abandon efforts that will ultimately lead to making our borders less safe.

Let me give an example of why this amendment is necessary. The Government Accountability Office, back in 2003, did an investigation to see how vulnerable we are with this Western Hemisphere exception to passports. Here is what their lead investigator said:

``We created counterfeit identification documents in order to establish fictitious identities and entered the United States from Jamaica, Barbados, Mexico, and Canada. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection staff never questioned the authenticity of these counterfeit documents and our agents entered with absolutely no difficulty entering the United States.''

With the recent terrorist arrests in Canada this month, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to wait any longer to secure our borders. If we are forced to wait longer, the next group of people using fictitious documents won't be GAO investigators; they could very well be terrorists.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this commonsense amendment to require passports to enter the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a universal document. Every country in the world requires passports to enter their nation. A passport is a secure document. Why are we trying to invent another type of identification, or multiple types of identification, so that we can have people from Canada and Mexico come up with those documents to enter the United States?

That is part of the problem we have now. There is no identification. There is some identification like baptismal certificates or marriage licenses to prove identity. Use the universal document like a passport. Then we can record who comes into the United States and who leaves the United States. We don't even do that now.

With a universal passport that everybody has, provided by their government, it will streamline the process. It will make it quicker and easier for Canadians to come into the United States, for Americans to travel back and forth across our common borders.

I urge adoption of this amendment, this commonsense amendment to require a passport to enter the United States.

I will.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act, H.R. 4761.

The United States must be more self-sufficient when it comes to energy. The United States imports 60 percent of its crude oil from foreign countries even though there are large quantities of oil and natural gas available in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However, these valuable resources are wrapped up in red tape and are off-limits to energy exploration. The United States is the only developed nation that limits access to their own natural resources. Other nations are willing to drill close to their own shores. Canada drills in the Great Lakes. Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand all drill within 50 miles of their own coastline. The Netherlands drills 20 miles off their shoes and Scotland drills 10 miles off their coast.

One part of the OCS, the Gulf of Mexico, is responsible for one-third of the domestic oil production and 20 percent of the domestic natural gas production. However, as we saw from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, these areas can be subject to supply disruption. It is imperative that the United States begin drilling in other parts outside of the Gulf. There is a wide range of areas where we can drill. While the United States drills off my home State of Texas and Louisiana; there is crude oil still available in the eastern parts of the Gulf of Mexico, on the east coast and, yes, even off the sacred coast of California. It is vital that we think and consider drilling in these areas.

Since the 1980s, Congress has been placing appropriations moratoriums on drilling in about 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf placing them off limit to any energy development. All the people in non- drilling coastal States want cheap gasoline and natural gas, but they do not drill in their neighborhood. They want Texas and Louisiana to keep drilling in our neighborhood. We cannot have it both ways; cheap gasoline and refuse to drill offshore. We must do everything in our power to expand energy exploration in the OCS.

Limiting our ability to explore for energy is hypocritical. It does not make sense. In this Outer Continental Shelf, there are about 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 50 billion barrels of oil yet to be discovered, that is enough oil or natural gas to: replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 60 years and produce sufficient natural gas to heat 75 million homes for 60 years; produce gasoline for 116 million cars and heating oil for 47 million homes for 15 years; produce sufficient natural gas to heat 75 million homes for 60 years.

The DOER Act is an important bill as it grants states the power to control the OCS area off their coasts and still allow energy exploration. States will now have the ability to control drilling rights up to 100 miles off their coast. Current law only gives them authority up to 3 miles. Additionally, the DOER Act will allow states to share in the leasing royalties that occur in those areas that States now control.

This will help to encourage more states to participate in energy exploration as they will now share in the benefits from leasing rights. For my State of Texas, we have long held the belief that drilling can be done in a responsible and environmentally safe way. Now, Texas will be able to share in those leasing royalties that in the past have been exclusively limited to the federal government. These funds can be used by Texas to offset the cost of Rita, fund education for Katrina refugees or other important programs for the State.

It is for these reasons that I support and am a proud cosponsor for H.R. 4761. If we want to reduce energy prices, we need to explore for energy. This is a good bill that will allow for further exploration and reward states that allow for that exploration. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Americans who live on the border are victimized by criminal invaders every day and they are fed up with it. They are tired of a weak immigration policy, but even more sick and tired of the Mexican Government trying to control American soil.

C.E. Dob Cunningham of Eagle Pass, Texas, has every right to be fed up, especially after receiving this letter from the Mexican Consulate in Mexico. It says: As an owner or occupant of property susceptible of crossings and break-ins by Mexican migrant workers, the consulate of Mexico is deeply concerned about this issue and the security of lives of migrant workers. We strongly recommend you do not take any measures into your own hands. Please be aware that it may have legal implications for yourself and the owners of these properties which may end up in expensive lawsuits and cumbersome court hearings.

Mr. Cunningham wrote back a few words and then wrote them back a second time and said, if your letter was intended to scare or intimidate us, it didn't work. Until the illegal alien problem is solved, we will continue to patrol our ranch to protect our property, our family and our freedom. C.E. Cunningham, proud American.

Let's send a message to Generalissimo Fox: we will not be scared or intimidated. In fact, Americans should sue Mexico and make Fox pay reparations for the damage his illegals do to American property by invading our country.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the 4th of July, it was 230 years ago, this signing of the Declaration of Independence.

But it wasn't until after the War of 1812 this holiday became more meaningful to Americans. It was after our young Nation had to whip the British a second time and yet again fight for our Nation's freedom. That is when Americans recognized why we should remain and remember our Nation, our struggle, and all we stand for.

On the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the document, was asked to speak at a celebration about it. He was lying on his deathbed, so he answered the call with this note:

May it, the Declaration of Independence, be to the world,

what I believe it will be. The signal of arousing men to

burst the chains and assume the blessings and security of

self-government.

For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever

refresh our recollections of these basic rights, and an

undiminished devotion to all of them.

Mr. Speaker, today I present to you a portrait of the devotion of a person to that Declaration of Independence. His name was Staff Sergeant Benjamin DeWayne Williams, United States Marine. I have here a photograph of him in his combat attire in Iraq. This was the way he looked shortly before he was killed. He was a true patriot.

He was from Orange, Texas, and on his third and last deployment. He was set to return home on August 15. He had plans to surprise his mother. But before that could happen, he was killed on June 20 fighting the enemy forces in Al Anbar, Iraq.

Ben Williams was 30 years of age. His friends said he loved being a Marine. He went to Little Cypress Mauriceville High School and played football, and as soon as he graduated from high school, he joined the United States Marine Corps.

He was a staff sergeant in the Marines and an infantry unit leader assigned to the First Battalion, First Marine Regiment, First Marine Division of the First Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, California. Ben's grandmother Carson Williams called him ``Bubba'' and said, ``Bubba died doing what he loved to do, and that was being a soldier.''

His sacrifice gives true meaning to the Vietnam era phrase ``All gave some . . . Some gave all.''

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan was correct when he said that ``Men cry `peace, peace,' but there can be no peace as long as there is some American somewhere dying for the rest of us.''

Sergeant Williams was one of those Americans. He gave all, dying for the rest of us. It was his devotion that thrust him into battle with his eyes wide open. He knew that there was a chance he wouldn't come home. He told his sister that he was fighting for her so that she could enjoy freedom. His level of devotion meant giving himself after giving his all. His life is the cost of freedom, a freedom and an expense that he embraced proudly.

Every member of the military we remember here on the House floor is described in those remarks as someone who loved his country, a soldier to the bone who believed in what they were doing. And that is tracking terrorists and ripping those terrorists from their roots so people around the world would know the blessings of liberty and the security of self-government that Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.

We call ourselves patriots, but few of us have the scars to prove it. Few have the courage to face and embrace the darkest unknown, the possibility of not going home.

These few, these volunteers, are a rich testament to the courage they have in their hearts. Now and always we must remember their sacrifice, our men and women who fight, so we can look in the blue skies of liberty and remember them with the flying of every star and every stripe.

So this 4th of July, we remember all of those who served, all of them that gave some and those that gave all.

So Semper Fi, Ben Williams. Semper Fi.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are fighting a war on terror, and now we are being told we are battling the press as well. The United States has rooted out terror on a global scale. They have also gotten unprecedented help from other countries and international banking institutions to seek out accounts used for al Qaeda money laundering, because without a supply of money, the terrorists have no fuse to light.

Now the New York Times has apparently detailed that security program to the entire world, and we find ourselves pondering what to do when the press willingly reveals national security secrets to terrorists.

Prior to World War II, the United States had broken the Japanese military communications codes. A journalist published a book revealing this classified information, so right before the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese changed their codes so the United States was unaware of this invasion.

In 1950, a law was passed making releasing such classified information a crime. If the New York Times has violated this law by becoming the Benedict Arnold press, they need to be held accountable. Not even a journalist from the Times has the right to violate the law just to get a byline.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, ``Just a truck driver and daddy from Florida'' is how Mark Lunsford describes himself. Being a single father, he worked many long, hard miles on the road to provide a good life for his children. He is just an average Joe. He has always loved his kids with every fiber of his being and he always made sure they were safe.

Nine-year-old Jessica, or ``Jessie'' as her daddy calls her, lived with Mark and his parents, where she could be closely watched and protected, even when he was on the road. She was a bright, energetic child who loved her grandparents, adored her father, and had been spared of the darkness of society. That beautiful innocence, however, was violently shattered in the dark of night on February 23, 2005.

Unbeknownst to Mark and his parents, a serial-convicted sex offender lurked right across the street. This vile snake laid in wait, slithered into the Lunsford home, and abducted little Jessica from her own bed. He took her safety, he took her innocence, and in the end, he took her life. Sadly, one month later, the devastating discovery of Jessica Lunsford occurred.

As any father would be, Mark was inconsolable at the news of his daughter's death. Mark realized, however, that he had to prevent another father from feeling this immense grief and another child from experiencing such violence. Mark immediately began working with the Florida State Legislators in enacting legislation aptly named, ``Jessica's Law.'' ``Jessica's Law'' requires a minimum sentence of 25 years incarceration for first time sexual offenders of children. The law also requires that these predators must be monitored for life, if they are released from prison.

A man who never imagined that he would be involved in politics, Mark became Jessica's voice throughout State governments. His fatherly instincts drove his passion to protect our Nation's children from these dangerous sexual predators lurking among us. During the last 15 months, due to his dedication, ``Jessica's Law'' has been enacted in 16 States, with 9 additional States enacting legislation similar to Jessica's Law.'' He is soft-spoken about his achievements and accomplishments, maintaining his victories are ``Only Jessie's.'' He has stated to me on many occasions, he will not stop until every State enacts ``Jessica's Law.'' Her memory is his strength.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2006, Mark was awarded the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in public and community service--The Jefferson Award. Specifically, he was awarded the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Award for Outstanding Public Service Benefiting the Local Community. This award was named after Jefferson Award co-founder, and former First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy, and is considered to be one of the most prestigious of all of the Jefferson Awards.

Mr. Speaker, as a father and grandfather to 6 girls, Mark's devastating loss hits very close to home. I have the privilege of knowing Mark and consider him one of my good friends. He

was a man who never imagined such a horrific tragedy could befall his daughter, and that his family could be victimized so cruelly; however, he refused to stand there and do nothing. He became an advocate; he became Jessica's voice. This ordinary man became an extraordinary dad and I am truly honored to pay him this tribute.

That's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, more than 30 years ago, Alberto and Olga Sanchez decided to leave the dusty border town of Renosa, Mexico, and immigrate to Texas with their small child, Alberto, Jr.

Alberto grew up in Houston and went to Milby High School. After high school, he wanted to go to college but decided to join the United States Army first. So he spent 9 years as a member of the United States Army.

He married his sweetheart, Yesenia; and their fifth wedding anniversary was to be next month.

But, Saturday, Staff Sergeant Alberto Sanchez, Jr., died while on combat patrol in Balad, Iraq. Caught in the path of an IED explosion, his wounds overcame him. He was 33 years of age.

He was assigned to the Army's 1st Battalion, 68th Armored Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division.

IEDs, improvised explosive devices, are nothing more than booby traps buried by cowardly, masked terrorists who lack the courage to face our troops.

Staff Sergeant Sanchez died while in service to his country. America joins his wife, his parents, his two siblings, along with a host of friends and family that mourn the loss of this American soldier. He is another example that freedom always costs and always will.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman regarding the importance of the Crime Victims Fund and programs authorized in Justice for All Act.

Mr. Chairman, I know you understand the importance of the Crime Victims Fund, which provides funding for victim services programs and compensation for victims of crime from Federal criminal court fines, forfeitures and special assessments, not taxpayer dollars. For the second year in a row, your committee rejected the administration's proposal to permanently rescind the $1.2 billion in the fund, and for that I thank you.

The bill places a limit on obligations in the Crime Victims Fund at $625 million. I want to ensure that all of that money is used for crime victim programs and that the limitation does not include any obligation that may be made under the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve.

Is that the chairman's understanding?

I want to thank the chairman. I also want to highlight the programs under the Justice for All Act of 2004 which authorizes funding to increase victims notification programs, DNA backlog programs, and Sexual Assault Forensic Exam grants.

This bill provides a significant investment for programs authorized in the act, but I want to call special attention to the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam grant program so that training, technical assistance, education, equipment and information regarding the collection, preservation and analysis of DNA in sexual assault cases can be enhanced.

I ask the chairman's help in supporting this grant program through the funds provide for the Justice For All Act.

I thank the chairman on behalf of victims of crime and the Victims Rights Caucus and the criminal justice professionals, and I thank you for your support.

Mr. Speaker, tonight there is one less brutal murderer in Texas. Angel Maturino Resendiz is gone. He has been executed, ending one of the most brutal reigns of terror a serial killer has ever known.

Some called him the face of death. He rode the rails from Mexico to the heartland of America, leaving a wake of bloodied and mutilated bodies behind him, quickly earning the top ranking of the FBI's most wanted list.

Thanks to the tenacity of Texas Ranger Drew Carter, who captured Resendiz, and the work of the FBI and numerous local law enforcement agencies, justice has occurred. The wanted posters have come down.

Resendiz raped, brutalized, tortured, maimed, and he took the lives of at least nine people, all who live within yards of railroad tracks throughout America. But he stole. He stole the security of citizens everywhere he went. Small town shops sold out of pistols. People who never locked their doors even sealed their windows because of the fear of Resendiz. Resendiz never knew where he was going, never brought anything with him but always knew what he would leave behind, a trail of terror and the darkness of death.

Tonight, much to the dismay of his victims' families, he met a far more peaceful fate than the one he inflicted on a 73-year-old woman. Her last view of Earth was his wicked face and a pickax coming right at her that was lodged in her head and embedded between her eyes. Tonight, Angel Resendiz is gone.

Americans are rid of the beast that pulverized a church secretary's face with a sledgehammer. Then he sexually assaulted her. His death sentence was for only one single slaying, the rape, stabbing and beating of a Houston doctor whose husband watched the execution tonight, saying people have to understand what evil really is.

Resendiz' sentence was objected to by the Mexican government, who tried to intervene today in U.S. Federal courts to prevent this justice from occurring. The Mexican government instead should pay reparations to the nine families he murdered, since Mexico encourages illegals like him to enter the United States.

Resendiz is accused and suspected of many, many more killings throughout the United States, all tied together with the winding railroad tracks that carried this monster to his chosen chore, committing unspeakable random acts of butchery.

Tonight, Texas and the rest of the country, they are safer. The man who considered himself half man and half angel was neither. He was not half angel. He was totally a demon. Tonight, he has met his judgment day.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, news from the front. The border war continues.

Generalissimo Fox and the Mexican media have taken a setback in the illegal invasion of the United States. Illegal border crossings and detentions

have dropped 21 percent in just 10 days. The reason: 55 National Guardsmen on the border. Even though the Guard was sent to the border in a support role and as a publicity stunt to appease Americans, they are deterring illegal entry into the United States.

The Mexican media, taking a page out of the New York Times and their hatred for the U.S. military, has so exaggerated the truth and alarmed the Mexican illegals about the National Guard, the crossings have decreased dramatically.

The fear that the National Guard is portrayed like their own corrupt military has slowed illegal entry, you know, that Mexican military machine that is on the southern Mexican border that reportedly ``rapes, robs and beats Hondurans and Guatemalans that are just trying to do jobs that Mexicans won't do.''

If 55 Guardsmen can reduce the number of illegals by 21 percent, just think what would happen if we used more Guardsmen on the border front.

Those who say we cannot stop the invasion so we ought to surrender our soil are underestimating the American National Guard.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill, insert after the

last section (preceding the short title), the following:

Mr. Speaker, in the border security debate, those that want to allow more illegals in this country just changed the definition of words to make it politically correct to accept illegals. But American citizens are not fooled. Donald Doiron of Nederland, Texas, writes to me:

``Since hearing the plan for treating illegals as guest workers, I have now undergone a complete reversal in my understand of the proper meaning of words. I used to believe that the definition of guest is one that is invited. Now I am told this is no longer correct.

``For instance, if a burglar breaks into my home, he really becomes a guest who is only working for a better life. Because he broke in for that reason, I must accept the obligation to provide him a job, health care, education, transportation, and living quarters for him and his family. I feel so much better now.''

Mr. Speaker, no matter how one puts the political spin, it is still illegal to

enter the United States without permission. What part of illegal do the anarchists that want lawless borders fail to understand?

And that's just the way it is.