Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Harlon Block and his high school teammates took their friendship, bravery and boldness off the football field and on to the battlefield.

Twenty-two-year-old Corporal Block, from the small border town of Weslaco, Texas, would end his journey as a Marine atop an extinct volcano on Iwo Jima. February 23, 1945, the single most patriotic photographic scene in American history would erupt.

Six men bowed to raise a large American flag atop Mt. Suribachi, as they said, ``so that every Marine on this cruddy island can see it.''

That picture would be the last for three of those heroes, including Harlon Block. Admiral Chester Nimitz said, ``Among the men who fought on Iwo Jima, uncommon valor was a common virtue.''

Harlon Block's desire to fight for freedom was a common trait for those warriors who thought the American flag was worth dying for.

This Memorial Day we will remember men like Harlon Block, the other 400,000 of the Greatest Generation who died in the great World War II and all those who died in America and for America's service.

We shall never flinch, never flee, never fear, because we will never forget the Americans.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $41,000,000)''.

Page 4, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $41,000,000)''.

Page 14, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $41,000,000)''.

Page 14, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $41,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 6: Page 62, after line 17, insert the

following:

Sec. 537. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available in this Act may be used to implement a plan under

section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) that permits

travel into the United States from foreign countries using

any document other than a passport to denote citizenship and

identity.

Mr. Speaker, imagine a place where one can get a job with no identification, no references, no experience. You show up, and after a few hours, you walk away with hard cash in your pocket. No questions asked. You pay no taxes. You pay no Social Security. You pay no health coverage, and at the end of the day, somebody else pays for all of that.

Welcome to your local day labor center funded by American tax dollars, government money to get hoards of illegal day labor jobs with the help of your wallet. Provide that cheap plantation labor for businesses that exploit the law at the expense of real Americans.

But these day laborers don't always work, Mr. Speaker. One in New York partied on cocaine and beer then beat, raped and murdered a woman after a subcontractor hired him to power wash her home. That Guatemalan had been illegally in the United States for 5 years, another example of our government's failure to keep illegals out of America but provide them jobs while they are here.

Mr. Speaker, whose side is our government on? Our government should be buying into America, not selling out to illegals.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, raped for more than an hour, sometimes by two gang members at once, they cried out for help. Tortured by six gang members, they begged for their lives.

As those gangsters strangled them with a belt, they clutched at it, hoping for air. The murderers, holding each end of the belt, pulled so hard, the belt snapped in two. Just to make sure that 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena were dead, the six gang members stomped on their necks with their boots.

Five of the killers were sentenced to death by separate Texas juries. Today, 13 years later, Elizabeth's parents and Jennifer Ertman's parents wait for justice and sob, wait for executions that were stayed.

The Supreme Court believes participating in a brutal gang rape and murder just months before your 18th birthday makes you too young for the death penalty, so two sentences were commuted. Now the others have had their executions stayed by the same arrogant, elitist judges, who wonder if lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Speaker, maybe not today, maybe not the next day, but some day, judges will treat victims with the same concern and compassion that they treat barbarians.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, she lost her house, she lost her way of life, and she lost her innocence. She had fled Katrina. She fled to Texas. But also fleeing with the good were the bad, and then the ugly happened.

Matthew Lindsey, registered sex offender from Louisiana, fled to Texas. He got that free FEMA money and those free FEMA hotel rooms. But FEMA would not let Texas lawmen see their database and cross-check for criminals like Lindsey. It was private, they said.

So it was then while baby-sitting 12 kids at a shelter he molested this 8-year-old girl. Now one little girl has emotional scars that will forever be with her.

Lindsey was one of 146 sex perverts that took the name ``hurricane victim'' and became that hurricane villain.

Congress must stop this nonsense and make FEMA quit protecting the lawless. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Fraternal Order of Police supports such legislation. We cannot stop hurricanes; we can stop sex offenders. We can force FEMA to help the lawmen find the outlaws and thereby save the innocent.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is under attack. And like December 7, 1941, we are asleep on a Sunday morning. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because this Nation is under attack by another nation. We are being invaded, we are being colonized, and there are insurgents from the nation of Mexico and their allies further south.

Mr. Speaker, in 1836, the State of Texas from which I hail from was invaded by Santa Ana and his Mexican Army, and they found those Texans who were seeking independence from Mexico in a beat-up old Spanish mission that was 100 years old at the time called the Alamo. They were led by a 27-year-old lawyer from South Carolina by the name of William Barret Travis. William Barret Travis knew the odds were against him, he knew that freedom was important, and he drew a line in the sand and he said, ``All of those who wish to die for liberty, cross this line.'' And they all did, save one individual who unfortunately hailed from the nation of France.

Texas lost the battle of the Alamo, and Mexico continued its conquering of Texas. General Sam Houston, who hailed from Tennessee, Governor of Tennessee, came to Texas, led the Texas Army at the Battle of San Jacinto. Texas was liberated from the nation of Mexico and gained independence on April 21, 1836.

I bring that history to the floor of the House because history is important for us to understand what is now taking place in the year 2006 in our country. Texas remained an independent nation for 10 years, and then in 1845 became a State in the United States. This body, along with the body down the hallway, admitted Texas to the Union by only one vote. Some wish even now the vote had gone the other way. But be that as it may, Texas became a part of the United States. And in history, the Southwest was first and foremost claimed by the nation of Spain, and I have on this map over here this beige color on the southwestern portion. And Spain claimed what was Texas west and went as far as California, and of course claimed Mexico. And Spain claimed that area and was Spanish for 100 years or more.

In 1810, Mexico decided to gain independence from the nation of Spain. They wanted their own country, and they fought from 1810 to 1821 to gain their independence. Spain lost Mexico because they were at war with Napoleon over in Europe, and Napoleon was hammering Spain at the same time the Mexicans were hammering Spain here in the Americas.

So Mexico became an independent nation, and Mexico claimed much of this area that was formally Spain's. Of course, in this same area lived those people that we call American Indians, mainly the Apaches and the Comanches. Now, they didn't really have towns; they just roamed that entire area that is in beige. So you have the American Indians and you have Mexico claiming this territory. And, of course, Texas was a part of Mexico at the time because it was settled under Spanish rule.

Texas decided to gain independence from Mexico, because Mexico went from a democracy to a dictatorship. Sounds familiar, does it not? That dictator was by the name of Santa Ana. And when Santa Ana became the dictator of Mexico, he abolished what we enjoy as human rights, civil liberties. And that is why Texas gained independence and fought for independence, to have those basic rights that now all Americans have.

Anyway, after Texas spent 10 glorious years being the Republic of Texas and joined the Union, Mexico was upset with that conduct, and in 1846, invaded the United States of America in three

places. One was in Matamoras, that is down here in the lower Rio Grande Valley as we call it, and came across the river. Also at that time they came in Palo Alto, Texas, in a place called Palma that no longer exists.

Of course, the United States, seeing that we were invaded and Mexico was trying to reconquer the Southwest, actually declared war on Mexico. Thus, the Mexican-American war.

And just so we understand, Mr. Speaker, what the intentions of Mexico were in 1846, the President of Mexico, President Paradas, spoke of occupying not only Texas, but taking Louisiana, New Orleans, and even going as far as Mobile, Alabama. Well, his desire to conquer the Southwest and part of the South never materialized, because American troops along with Texas Rangers went into Mexico and defeated the Mexican Army at Vera Cruz, occupied Mexico City; civil war broke out in Mexico, the government was replaced.

California is declared an independent republic for a period of time, and the American forces conquered this entire area of the Southwest, California, New Mexico, and Texas, once again. And the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, and Mexico ceded California and New Mexico to the United States. It also recognized the boundary line of Texas and Mexico as the Rio Grande River. That was already done in the previous treaty that Mexico signed when Texas became an independent nation.

So the second time Mexico reaffirmed the border of the Southwest being the Rio Grande River. Mexico got 15 million for this acquisition along with forgiveness of all of the debts that were owed to American citizens in Mexico. And then in 1853, the United States bought more land from Mexico called the Gadsden Purchase, and in that document reaffirmed for the third time that the border between the United States and Mexico was the Rio Grande River.

Now, the reason I mention all of that, Mr. Speaker, is because now today, the year 2006, there are some who still want Mexico to occupy this entire land. And it is obvious from the actions from Generalissimo Fox in Mexico that this is his intention. In fact, let me give you some examples.

The nation of Mexico has furnished school books to the school districts in Los Angeles. Of course, they are in Spanish. And in those books they teach that this land, Los Angeles, still belongs to Mexico. We even have people who live in the United States of Hispanic descent that teach the same thing, that California really belongs to Mexico and they wish to reconquer it.

You know, Vicente Fox, Generalissimo Fox, is really a fox in fox clothing. Unlike his ancestor, Santa Ana who invaded the United States, he won't bring troops into this country. He stays behind the border and sends his people here and expects them to colonize and invade the United States. I will give you an example of that, Mr. Speaker.

We have here on this chart part of a document, a coloring book that is published by the Mexican Government, Vicente Fox's government, and this is handed out to Mexican nationals before they come into the United States telling them how to get into the United States illegally. And this is a portion of the book that I have put for you on this chart, Mr. Speaker; and it is a guide for the Mexican migrante. Here it shows illegally crossing the border. This other panel shows what happens when you come in contact with those mean old border security agents in the United States, what to do about a human smuggler or a coyote and how to pay those individuals, and then this last panel shows another place of where to cross or not to cross.

This whole booklet is given to Mexican nationals so they know where to cross so they can avoid places where the border security is, avoid places where maybe the wall will be built like Mr. King is proposing to do.

But in any event, it is an insurgency in the United States that seems to me to be sponsored by Generalissimo Fox. You know, it appears to me that Mexico is at war with the United States and we don't even know it. We have 5,000 people a day illegally crossing into the State of Texas. As Mr. King pointed out earlier, we have 11,000 coming across the entire southwestern portion of the United States every day, and they are not all coming here to work. There are three types of people.

We know that the drug cartels are bringing drugs in this country like never before. We also know that those people that want to do us harm, we still call those people terrorists, they are coming across the southern border of the United States. And there are other people coming here illegally. And what are we doing about it? Well, we have a place called Maywood, California where the public officials have decided that this town in the United States is going to be a sanctuary for illegals. In other words, if you are an illegal from another country, you can go to Maywood, California, and they will make sure that the local police don't arrest you for being in the country illegally. They even want to name a new elementary school there in Maywood, California, U.S.A. by the name of President Benito Juarez. Of course, he happened to be President of Mexico at one time. Colonization of the United States, Mr. Speaker, is taking place.

And to carry it further, last week when it was reported that the National Guard may go down on our borders, the Mexico City newspaper was outraged about this and quoted a lot of locals about what they thought about it. One Mexican national said in the Mexico City newspaper, ``No wall, no fence will keep us out. For Mexico, there are no obstacles.'' It sounds to me like folks are coming over here uninvited and appears to be an invasion.

You know, certain groups in the United States want Mexico to retake California and the Southwest, and they advocate such. Two of those groups, Aztlan and MEChA, both are groups that you can see are in favor of colonization of this country and turning it back over to Mexico.

To give you an example of that, we have one elected official in Baja, California, a reported Gloria Vargas, that says, ``Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the United States. This was once our land. Those same lands we are reconquering for our country, Mexico.''

It seems a bit odd we have American elected officials preaching and advocating that this country, part of it, ought to go back to Mexico.

So apparently there is a movement to conquer the United States. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to cross the line and fight for our Nation, or are we going to remain asleep on a Sunday morning while the invasion takes place? The line obviously is drawn in the sand.

I want to mention those three types of groups that are coming into this country. Now, I hail from Texas, southeast Texas. Where I come from is right on the Gulf of Mexico and it borders Louisiana, and so I have been very familiar with the outbreak of folks coming in the United States illegally from all nations. I have spent some time down on the Texas border with our local sheriffs all the way from Roma, Texas, up to Langtry, Texas. Probably no one in this House has ever heard of either one of those places. There was a favorite judge of mine by the name of Judge Roy Bean who used to hold court in Langtry, Texas.

But be that as it may, I was down on the border with some of our Texas sheriffs, and at one time I was there with Rick Flores from Webb County and Ziggi Gonzales from Zapata County, and I wanted to see how the drug dealers were bringing dope into the United States. Now, Webb County is where Laredo, Texas is; across the river is Nuevo Laredo. And so the sheriff said, Okay, I will take you to portions of the Texas- Mexico border, but I am not taking you down to certain portions of the border unless you go with my SWAT team and you are wearing a bullet- proof vest. And I said, Why do I got to wear a bullet-proof vest for? And he says, You go down to the river in certain parts, those drug dealers are going to shoot at you, not from the American side, but from the Mexican side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have got a problem with that. I have got a problem with being on sovereign U.S. soil standing on the border getting shot at from the other side. Now, I wonder if that offends anybody besides myself.

Anyway, we went down to the border. We saw what takes place on the Texas-Mexico border, because the drug cartels are fighting every inch to bring that dope into the United States. It is a

very well-organized movement. Nuevo Laredo, as I mentioned to you, used to be a town which shared common interests with Texas and Mexico, frequent border crossings, legal border crossings, and tourists would go to Nuevo Laredo. Nuevo Laredo now is a war zone. It is run by the corrupt officials and the drug cartels. Over the past 2 years, the murder rate in Nuevo Laredo is the highest in the world because the drug dealers are killing off the police and they are killing off the citizens and they are fighting with each other. There have been 44 kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo and Laredo of American citizens; and yet of those 44 kidnappings, not one, Mr. Speaker, not one has been solved.

All of those murders in Nuevo Laredo of the police and of the citizens and of the good people in Mexico, not one have been solved. That is what is going on because of the drug cartels using Nuevo Laredo as the staging area to bring that dope into the United States and sell it among Americans.

It is an epidemic, it is organized, and these folks not only have the narcotics, they have the money and they have the fire power.

I was talking to Sheriff Flores of Webb County. Webb County is about the size of Rhode Island, and he has about 27-30 deputies. At any given time, he has seven deputies on patrol in a county the size of Rhode Island. He was telling me, you know, the drug dealers, they have got more money than we do. And let me give you an example: he said, I make $44,000 a year. My deputies, they make about $27,000 a year. A drug dealer, he makes $30,000 a week bringing drugs into the United States. So there is more money in lawlessness than there is in following the law.

Anyway, he said they had better equipment and they have better fire power and better communications. He said that, you know, when we are out on patrol and we use our cell phones, those drug dealers in Mexico track us with GPS; they know exactly where we are, and they have better vehicles than we do as well.

So that is the armed invasion that we are fighting on the border, and not just in Texas, but it occurs in Arizona and New Mexico and California as well. So it is important that we take care of business and protect the dignity of the United States, to keep the drug dealers from bringing those drugs into the United States for money.

You see, it is all about money, and we will get to more about that in a minute, but you follow the money trail and you will see why people do what they do when they invade the United States.

On the second trip down to the border, I was with other Texas sheriffs, and we saw the same thing where the drug dealers sneak into the United States, and they have paths into our country and they know what we know. Let me explain to you that.

The Border Patrol of the United States patrols the first 25 miles from the border inland. So the drug dealers make sure that they get that dope 30 miles inland because once it is 30 miles into the United States, they can take it anywhere else they want to in the United States. This is all they have to do is avoid the Border Patrol for the first 25 miles because that is all the Border Patrol is allowed to patrol by law. That is why we need not only the Border Patrol but the sheriffs, the Texas sheriffs, the Arizona sheriffs and the California and New Mexico sheriffs, all involved in border security.

So that is the first group that we have to protect ourselves against. That is the duty of government, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the public, protect the people. In this House, we pontificate every day about what government ought to be involved in. Let me tell you something, the first duty of government is national security, protect the people of these United States. Oh, programs and building bridges and that kind of stuff may be important, but it is not as important as the number one duty of government which is to protect us, and our government has the duty to protect us from those criminals who are vicious that are bringing dope into this country.

The second people that we need to be concerned about are terrorists; and, Mr. Speaker, I serve on the International Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, and we understand that terrorists want to do us harm. We forget our history too quickly. September 11 was not that long ago, but the next terrorist attack that occurs against us is probably not going to be because somebody gets on some airplane and flies into Reagan National over here and gets off the airplane and says I wonder what damage I can do to Washington D.C. It is not going to happen that way, even though we are doing the best we can in the airline industry.

It is going to happen that somebody crosses the border into the United States because this country still has porous, open borders. It is easier to cross the border, and we know that has already occurred, Mr. Speaker. How many of those people that are here are going to do us harm? We do not know, but we do know that there are people who wish to do us harm that are forming cells in Mexico, assimilating into the Mexican population, learning Spanish and then sneaking into the United States as migrant workers and setting up cells in this country and some day hoping to do us harm.

We have an obligation to fight the war on terror at our borders. We are protecting the borders of other nations. Why are we not protecting our own border against terrorists? That is the second group of people that we have to demand that we keep out of this country, and those are the terrorists.

Then the third group of the people are those human traffickers. We call those people coyotes because that is what they are is a bunch of coyotes who bring people into the United States for money, and the human smugglers work with the drug dealers. That is what we have got to understand; and that little group of terrorists, we know they are kind of involved in all of that, too. You see, these three groups all work together because they know the routes into the United States to bring drugs, damage or weapons and bring human beings, and for those reasons, we have to protect the dignity of our country.

We know, of course, that the Mexican Government, Generalissimo Vicente Fox is not doing anything to stop this, contrary to what he says, contrary to the comments he makes, that apparently he is not doing anything to stop this nonsense.

We recently understand that in Hudspeth County, Texas, an armed group of military from Mexico, in other words, Mexican soldiers, were on American soil helping drug dealers. The Hudspeth County sheriff so relates this event; and we know that in the last several years, since 1996, there have been 200 recorded incidences of Federal military from Mexico on the American side of the border. Why are they here? Well, they are not over here looking for work, Mr. Speaker.

So now we use our military to go down to the border, the proposal to use the National Guard to enforce the border, enforce the rule of law, to help our border sheriffs, to help our Border Patrol. So what is Mexico's response? They are going to sue us. Well, we are going to take you to court in your own court and try to prevent those military, those American soldiers, from being on our side of the border, protecting us from them. How outrageous is that, going to sue to prevent that from occurring.

Not only that, you know, over in Maricopa County in Arizona, the sheriff there is trying to enforce the rule of law and arrest folks that are illegally in the United States. They threatened to sue him, too, because you do not have the authority to do that says the Mexican Government, and so they are going to take him to court, trying to prevent local law enforcement from enforcing American law.

So how have we allowed ourselves to get in a situation where we have a foreign nation taking us to court in our own courts, preventing us from protecting our borders? Just like in 1836, when William Barret Travis and those volunteers at the Alamo, volunteers from every State in the United States and 13 foreign countries, including Mexico, fighting for dignity were under siege of Santa Ana, it appears that the United States, at least on our southern border, is under siege by Generalissimo Santa Ana Vicente Fox.

The invasion, of course, benefits Mexico and its allies--$20 billion a year in

remittance go to Mexico since Mexican nationals working in the United States send that money south of the border. The number happens to be $20 billion. That is just a number. You know, here in Washington, $1 billion here, $1 billion there, does not mean anything; but to Mexico, that $20 billion of money going south of the border into the coffers of Mexico is the second largest amount of foreign income into Mexico, save only the crude oil that they sell on the world market.

We also now understand the population of the northern states of Mexico has declined 35 percent. Well, where are those people? They are all in the United States. When I was down on the Texas-Mexico border, the sheriffs were explaining to me, the border towns across the river, many of which you could see, are almost totally empty of the male population. The only people there are kids and women and older citizens. Well, where is the male population? They are all in the United States, sending money back to Mexico. Mexico, the border towns in Mexico have become ghost towns because those people have come to the United States.

President Fox is making his problem our problem. His failure to get rid of corruption in Mexico, his failure to have a stable economy, his failure to take advantage of the workers in Mexico and the natural resources in Mexico to make that nation a prosperous country, he is making his problems our problems.

Let me at this time, Mr. Speaker, recite to you an immigration policy: number one, if you migrate to this country, you must speak the language. Two, you have to be a professional or investor; no unskilled workers are allowed. Number three, there will be no special bilingual programs in the school, no special ballots or elections, and all government business will be conducted in just one language. Four, foreigners will not have the right to vote. Five, foreigners will never be able to hold public office. Six, foreigners will not be a burden to taxpayers; there will be no welfare, no health care, no government assistance. Seven, if foreigners come and want to buy land, this is highly restricted. Eight, foreigners may not protest; no demonstration, no foreign flag, no political organizing and no criticizing the President or the policies. Nine, if you come into the country illegally, you will be arrested by our Federal police, sent to jail and then deported.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the U.S. immigration policy, but this is the alleged policy of President Vicente Fox in Mexico. It appears to me that the immigration policy of Mexico is quite hypocritical because they have a policy that they do not want us to have in this country, and it is ironic that Mexico defends its southern border from illegals coming in from the South American countries and from Central American countries, has an immigration policy like this, and the United States is harassed, intimidated and criticized for trying to have a simple and fair immigration policy.

Let me continue to show you how absurd this problem has become.

There is this little document called the matricula consular card. Now, what that is, is a card that is issued to people illegally in the United States. That is an identification card, and that matricula consular card is not just used for identification, but it allows people--illegally in the United States--to go and open a bank account. Then the bank, working with the illegal that is in the United States, can ship that money that they are earning here back home to whatever country they come from. Some say there are 11 million people here illegally. Others argue that there are 15 million, maybe 20 million people illegally in the United States.

Let us talk about immigration. Let us talk a little bit about the guest worker program. Oh, how the United States has been criticized by certain countries because we do not let people come here. The United States is a Nation of immigrants, we all know that. It still has the most liberal immigration policy in the world. We let more people in legally in the United States every year than all of Europe does, and let me give you an example of how many people.

This chart shows since 2000 how many people we legally let in the United States each year: 2000, it was about 1 million; 2001, 1.1 million; 2002, 1.1 million; 2003, 1.2 million; 2004, 1.1 million. These are people legally allowed into the United States; and you notice, most of these people stay in the United States. They have a legal permit to be here. Under whatever system they come here legally allows them to stay 3 to 5 years. So we have several million people already in the United States legally. We also know that 40 percent of them that come here legally, when they are supposed to go home, they do not do it. That is another issue.

So this business about we do not have a guest worker program is nonsense. What has this done? Has allowing 1.1 million people legally in the country every year stopped illegal entry into this country? Absolutely not. In fact, all it has done is encourage more people to come here illegally because people are going to come here whether we let them in or not, and that is just the way it seems to be. So the guest worker program does not stop illegal entry into this country.

This body down the hallway from us who want to increase the number of people legally coming here under a guest worker program must understand that that will do nothing to stop the illegal entry into this United States.

We hear that they are taking jobs away from Americans. I think that is nonsense. That is just an excuse to let people who come here illegally and come here legally as an excuse to pay them subpar wages. It appears to me that the United States is sort of staring down the barrel of this big battle and embracing the enemy.

And if we were at the Alamo, it would be similar to asking Santa Anna to come on into the Alamo for whiskey before he takes us over, because we do not seem to understand this problem and the affects on our Nation. If affects our country.

Let us talk about education. Many States are looking for money to educate their youth. Education is one of the bedrocks of this Nation, educating the young to be all they can be. But most States, and I do not know any State that has more money than they need in the area of education, but part of their education problem is they have to educate people that are here illegally because that is the way it is. They have to educate those people. In some States, my State for example, up to 20 percent of the cost of the education system in the State is based upon the fact they are educating people illegally in the United States.

Why don't we talk about that? Why don't we deal with that issue? Is there any other country in the world that one of us in this room could illegally go into and demand an education in our own language and get it? I think not. But in the United States we do it, and we pay the consequences for the illegal entry into our country.

The second one is health care. Every American is concerned about health care and the cost of health care. There are so many Americans in the middle class that are opting out of insurance because they can't afford insurance and they are concerned about health care for themselves and their families and what is going to happen to them down the road. It is one of the biggest concerns all of us in this House hear about every day, the cost of health care. Well, about 23 percent of the cost of health care is being paid by us because people who are in the system aren't paying for it.

And I am not talking about the uninsured. I am talking about the people here illegally in the United States. Just a couple of weeks ago, a hospital down in my district just spent $250,000 on one patient, and he happened to be in the United States illegally. Because of an injury that he had, we paid for it because he certainly didn't have any means to take care of himself.

We know illegals go to the emergency rooms. The highest most expensive costs in our health care system are the trauma rooms, the emergency rooms, and they go there to get taken care of because we don't turn anybody down. That is our system in this country. Does that make any sense at all?

So what are the hospitals doing? They are closing their emergency rooms. Some hospitals are closing down because they can't afford to stay in business because they are treating people that don't pay their own way.

And Americans are not getting health care because we are having to pay for the health care of those people who are here illegally in the United States.

The third category, besides education and health care, is the criminal justice system. Before I came to this House, I spent all my time in the criminal justice system, first as a prosecutor, and then 22 years as a judge down in Texas trying felony cases. And about 20 percent of the people that come through our criminal justice system are illegally in the United States. So they are not only committing crimes, they are getting caught, then going through the justice system that taxpayers pay for, and then they go to our penitentiaries, if convicted, and we have to pay for that system too.

So we get hit twice by criminals from other countries all over the world. First, it is the crime, and second, we pay for the crime because we furnish them the system and then we pay for their incarceration as well.

The fourth category, of course, is social services, such as Social Security benefits. Our Social Security System was never designed to be a system that took care of people illegally in the United States and allowed them to send their Social Security benefits back home to the country they came from, and yet that is occurring. The Social Security System was never designed to be an identifying system that employers have got to check Social Security numbers.

Social Security was never designed to be an identification for who you are. It is a retirement system. So we have abused the Social Security System, or allowed it to be abused by those people who don't even belong in the United States.

Another category that I just cannot comprehend is how we allow folks that are illegally in the United States, and I am not talking about legal aliens or immigrants that are here legally, we will get to them in a minute, I am talking about folks who are here illegally in the United States, who graduate from one of our high schools and then want to go to college. Now, if one of these folks from some foreign country, any foreign country, illegally in the United States, gets admitted to one of our State universities in Texas, they pay in-State tuition. They pay the same tuition anybody else in the State of Texas would pay.

Remember, we wonder, do we not, why are they going to school anyway if they are illegally in the country? But let's say you are from Oklahoma. We can talk about Oklahoma or Iowa, where Mr. King is from, and let's say one of those students, American citizen, legal immigrant, wishes to go to school in the State of Texas to a State school. They pay out of State tuition because they are not from around here. They are from some other place. So we make them pay out of state tuition.

So I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Why do we discriminate against American citizens in other States, legal immigrants in other States, make them pay out of State tuition and furnish an in-State tuition fee to a person illegally in our own State? That is an absurd policy. I don't understand why we do that. That is certainly not fair to people that are legally in the country or to American citizens.

One thing that has been mentioned and continues to be mentioned is the concept of the fraud that is perpetrated on the United States based upon the 14th amendment. Let me give an example.

Down in south Texas, frequently pregnant ladies come across the Texas River, illegally coming to the United States from all over the world, and then they have a child born then in the United States. We assume that child is an American citizen. And because it is our policy to assume that person is an American citizen, the mother gets to stay. If the husband is here, he gets to stay. And before you know it, the whole family is allowed to stay because of the fraud perpetrated on the American people by that pregnant individual coming into the United States illegally and having a child.

It is based upon a phrase in the 14th amendment that says that ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' are citizens. Now, notice, Mr. Speaker, what the phrase says. It says ``all persons born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' are citizens.

Well, I think the argument should be made that that individual that perpetrated a fraud on the United States, illegally coming into the country, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. She is subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country she came from. And, hopefully, this matter will be resolved by either legislation from this body or by our Supreme Court across the street to determine whether or not those people really are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and whether they should be granted automatic citizenship or not. That will be left for another time.

But just to show you how we are our own worst enemy and how we are inviting the insurgents into our country, we have cities in this Nation, it is usually the large cities, the big cities, and, unfortunately, it happens to be my city of Houston, Texas, that have sanctuary policies. What a sanctuary policy is that local police officers are instructed that they are not to stop people and inquire as to their legal status in the country. If they do so, then they will be disciplined. This gives an open invitation to people, because they know they will not be stopped by the police, arrested and deported.

What used to happen, Mr. Speaker, was local police would stop somebody on a traffic or some other minor offense, find out they were here illegally in the United States, and they would turn them over to the immigration officials and immigration officials would then deport that individual. That doesn't happen any more. Now they may stop them and realize they are from some other country, but they let them go because cities have sanctuary policies. Don't arrest people here illegally in the United States.

This means you can get arrested for jaywalking but you can't be arrested for being here illegally in this country. Makes me wonder whether or not we have lost our common sense.

Let me read some letters and correspondence I have gotten and received from individuals about this whole issue of unlawful entry into the country. As many Members of the House have done, we have received numerous comments, e-mails, letters and phone calls of what people think about this whole issue of the border and border security, which is the issue.

One of the towns I represent is a small town called Humble, Texas, and Zine from Humble has written me this comment: She says, ``I am an immigrant myself, who was blessed to have the privilege of becoming an American citizen. I came to this country legally many years ago with my two daughters. As soon as we arrived, my daughters were enrolled in school so they could learn English and we spoke only English at home. My sister, who sponsored us, took us to McDonald's and told my daughters that they couldn't really be Americans unless they ate hamburgers and drank Coca-Cola. Five years later, we became U.S. citizens. We are Brazilian by birth and Americans by choice, and we did it legally. We never demanded any rights because we had none until we became citizens. We pay taxes, we obey the law, we love this country with its tradition and all it stands for, and we do not wish to see it destroyed or changed. In 2004, I had to go to the emergency room of a local hospital. I was there for 7\1/2\ hours because the waiting room was full of illegals who, according to the law, had to be taken care of. I pay taxes, they don't. Where are my rights?

Another letter I received from Jack, in Houston, Texas, tells me this. He says, ``My wife, who I love dearly, is an immigrant, a legal immigrant who took the time and effort and wanted to do the right thing that would allow her to come and stay in this country legally. For illegal immigrants to demand their citizenship and rights I think pretty much violates all this country stands for, which is fair and equal treatment under the law of the land, which they seen fit to break. To me, this is akin to convicts in prison demanding to be released because they want to be released regardless of crimes that they have committed.''

Another U.S. citizen of Hispanic descent, Marinell, from Houston, proudly writes, ``Speaking for the Hispanic community who are U.S. citizens, I'm asking you for your support to secure the borders. There are some issues that are very important and are simple that

should be followed. One, close the border. Two, make illegal entry into the United States a felony. Three, no amnesty programs by any name. Four, guest workers should be fingerprinted and background checked. Five, any detained illegals should be immediately deported.

Six, English only. The cost to us for accommodating so many languages is overwhelming. Seven, no more automatic citizenship for people born in America of parents who are not U.S. citizens. Eight, exact a tax on money wired out of the United States by illegals. Nine, stop listening to illegals and start listening to Hispanics who are U.S. citizens.

Ten, don't believe that our economy will collapse if we don't have illegals. We would all rather pay a little more for goods and services and less for our health care premiums.''

Wise common sense by a person who did it the right way, proud to be in the United States and proud to be here legally.

Philip from Montgomery, Texas, says, ``I've heard it argued that illegals are only coming to improve their economic standing. Can not the same be said of anyone who commits larceny? They want to improve their economic standing as well. Illegals are systematically robbing our public coffers, denying our citizens adequate education, medical care and other essential services. Enough is enough.''

Carl from Beaumont, Texas, writes, ``The argument used to justify illegal aliens is that they will do the work that Americans won't do. Well, that is not correct. Americans will do the work if paid the going wage, not less than the minimum wage. I am disheartened that we reward employers who rob Americans of honest work by cheap labor. This has to stop. This country has grown into a powerhouse without resorting to economic slavery of immigrants.''

Just this week I received a letter from a member of a local union down in Beaumont, Texas. He sent me a newspaper article. This newspaper article headlines ``Fabricator requests 300 Mexican workers. Company claims there's not enough Americans to work.'' And the article goes ahead and points out that there are three businesses down in Beaumont, Texas, that want pipefitters and welders to come on board from other nations because there is not workers. Well, that is preposterous. This local pipefitters union member wrote me a letter saying he hadn't even heard about this, and his whole responsibility is finding jobs for local citizens as pipefitters and as welders.

And you notice we are talking about pipefitters and we are talking about welders. We are not talking about someone doing unskilled labor. These are good wages. And some of the businesses would rather hire people from other nations, claiming there are no Americans that will take these jobs, and then pay subpar wages. Mr. Speaker, this is just not right, and these individuals certainly, who are American citizens and are legally here, ought to be receiving the jobs over people from other nations.

So what are the solutions? The first one, the government has to fight for America. Some have said that our government's at war but it is at war with the American public, at war with the American will. We ought to make sure our government has the moral will to protect the dignity of our country, the borders, both the northern border and the southern border.

Our government has to quit working for other nations. There are reports even this week that the Minutemen, nonviolent individuals who go and sit on the border and watch for illegals coming in and then notify the Border Patrol, there are reports that the Border Patrol is telling the Mexican government where these Minutemen are so that the illegals crossing into the United States go around them.

I do not know if this is true or not, but we are going to find out if that is true and it is going to stop. The American Government has to work for America not for foreign governments.

We have to protect our borders. I mentioned earlier that we protect the borders of other nations, so maybe we ought to protect the borders of our own Nation. Third world countries protect their borders better than the United States does.

The reason is we do not have the moral will to protect the dignity of the border. We talk about how we are going to protect the border, but we have not done it. There was talk about it in 1996 when this House talked about border security and a guest worker program. Nothing happened. We got the guest worker program, we just didn't get border security.

My grandfather used to say when all is said and done, more is said than done. That is what is going on. We are talking about it and there is a lot of publicity about it, but it does not seem that we are demanding and securing the border.

We have to help the Border Patrol do their job. We need to give them the best equipment. Just like we give our military the best equipment, we need to give our border patrol the best equipment.

The National Guard, they are part of the military. Their responsibility is to protect us. It is a good idea to use them immediately because no wall can be built overnight, yet the National Guard can be deployed overnight. Even if Generalissimo Vicente Fox does not like it, we ought to do it.

We should consider using a fence in appropriate areas. I know other Members of Congress have received all types of correspondence and mail. We get all kinds of things sent to us. But recently, I had an individual from Texas send me four cases of bricks. Here is one of those bricks. He sent a letter along with it. In the letter he said, why don't you use this brick and these other bricks to build a wall to protect us from people illegally coming into the United States. Other Members of Congress have received these bricks as well.

The American public wants something done. Whatever it takes to secure the dignity of the United States, we certainly ought to do it. Maybe we ought to have Extreme Makeover go down to the Texas border and have an ``Extreme Makeover Border'' edition. As fast as they build something, they would not take long to build a wall. The reason we are building the wall is because of those people illegally coming into the United States. No American should ever feel guilty about that.

Mr. Speaker, we need to use the best law enforcement groups in the United States and that is the sheriffs, the Texas sheriff, the border sheriffs in California, Arizona and New Mexico. Those are some right- thinking folks. They know the area. They know the people. They have dedicated their lives to enforcing the law. But the way the law is written now, we cannot use the border sheriffs in detaining illegals that come into our country, and we ought to use them. We ought to give them the law enforcement power to turn illegals over to Federal authorities and have Federal authorities deport those individuals.

Rick Flores of Webb County made the comment, he said this is not a partisan issue. It is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, and he is a Democrat. He said this is a red, white and blue issue. He is right. Our border sheriffs ought to be used because they all grew up in these particular areas. They know the people and know who shouldn't be in those particular areas. So we should give them the money to do this.

The second thing we need to do after we secure the border, and we secure the borders before we start talking about people who are here illegally or any other immigration policy because you must stop the bleeding before you can solve the problem.

Once we secure the dignity of the border, we have to go back and look at our immigration policy. It is chaos in my opinion. It takes too long for people to come here legally. I have had individuals from Mexico who have tried to get into the United States, and it has taken years. People in my district, it took them a long time to come in legally. We seem to discriminate against people. We do not treat them all alike. We have to look at our immigration policy, maybe start over and make it fair and put the world on notice here is how you enter the United States legally.

Whether you want to work here, or whether you want to be a resident alien or become an American citizen. We have to stop the chaos in the immigration department.

One thing that we ought to do, it seems real obvious to me, when people cross from the nation of Mexico or Canada or the Caribbean, they can show one of several hundred documents to prove that they are from some other nation. They can even use a baptismal certificate. Our border agents have to shuffle through all of these different papers to figure out whether these people in this car are legally coming into the United States.

Why do we make it so difficult on ourselves? Why don't we do what every other nation does, and that is if you come to the United States legally, you have to have a passport, just like they do in every other nation in the world. When we let people into this country legally, we do not even know who they are. When they leave, we do not record that they left. With the bar code in a passport, we can check people's criminal record. We can record and keep a database if they are legally coming into this country and when they have to go home.

Then the employer can have a photograph on a visa and the employer can use a government document rather than some Social Security number to see if the person he is hiring is legally in the United States and quit making police officers out of our businesses.

Why people are opposed to a passport, I do not know. We talk about all kinds of identification cards that we want people to carry; simple, universal, worldwide, because we are in the world community, a worldwide document, a passport to enter the United States.

Then we ought to deport felons that are convicted automatically. Let me tell you what happens. Someone would be in this country, they are caught committing a crime. They are tried. They are sent to the Texas penitentiary. You would think that our government would automatically deport those people. But we do not do that. What we do is let them go back in the county in which they were convicted. Then the immigration service has to recapture them and have a deportation hearing and may or may not deport them.

I tried people back in Texas who were illegally in the United States and never deported. They were released, went back and committed another crime, and went back to the penitentiary. We ought to deport people who are convicted of a felony if they are from another country.

Probably the best example of an individual who abused our system was an individual by the name of Angel Resendiz. He came to the United States. He was captured several times, deported a few times. After being released, he committed nine murders in the United States. He was released by Federal authorities after being captured several other times. Resendiz is sitting now on death row in Texas waiting to be executed.

I haven't even talked about those people from all over the world who come here just to commit crime. So deport people who are convicted of felonies in our Nation as soon as they serve their sentence. We have to abolish this catch-and-release policy. Catch and release is a phrase that fishermen use. Catch and release is you catch them, take them off the hook and you let them go.

That is what they do with fish, catch and release. Because we claim we do not have enough facilities to detain individuals. People from Mexico, if you are captured illegally, we deport you. We send you back home. But if you are from some other nation other than Mexico, OTMs, if you are from China or Peru or France, instead of deporting you automatically, you are released. Thus, the catch and release. What they do, they stand before a magistrate and swear that they will come back for their deportation hearing in 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, does it surprise anybody that more than 90 percent of those people we never see them again. They just move on. We catch them, we let them go. This is absurd. Police officers work too hard to capture these individuals just to let them go. We have to find facilities to house these people until they are deported. Put them on old military bases.

We have 10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas, owned by FEMA. They are in Hope because they would not bring them down to hurricane areas like Texas because of the floodplain. That violates one of their policies. Why not use FEMA trailers as temporary housing for OTMs. Here we discriminate against Mexican nationals here illegally because we send them home. But if you are from some other Nation other than Mexico, you are released and told to come back. And then we are shocked that people do not come back.

We ought to deny benefits for people here illegally in this country. They shouldn't receive health care, education, welfare, housing, AFDC, Social Security and they certainly should not receive amnesty. The idea that we are going to tell people here is what we are going to do, we are going to give you amnesty, but you are going to have to pay a fine, pay some back taxes and learn English. What if they do not do that? We are going to do nothing because that is what we have been doing, nothing. What prompts those people to do that. They have been dealing with a cash economy. They do not even know what their back taxes are. So this whole idea of rewarding illegal behavior is wrong.

We ought to also go after employers that knowingly hire people illegally in this country. You know, 3 or 4 weeks ago we heard about a couple of businesses in the United States that were raided and captured folks that were here illegally, and the business was being prosecuted for hiring illegals. That has gone away. That is not in the news anymore. Why not? Because all that was a publicity stunt, in my opinion.

There are many businesses that hire people legally from other nations, and there are other businesses for cheap, plantation labor hiring them subpar. We ought to go after those people. It is follow the money. Follow the money trail, and that is something that we ought to do.

There are people with different motives that do not want our borders protected. There are some on the left, those northeastern elites who I think for political gain don't want our borders protected. There are people on the right for cheap labor that do not want our borders protected. Our borders need to be protected because all people in this country have the right to have our borders protected.

Mr. Speaker, the battle for America and its dignity is upon us. I think we ought to fight for our homeland. This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the law. As I have mentioned, there are many good folks from other nations that are legally in this country that have become citizens. But those people that illegally flaunt our Nation and our laws should be held accountable. Our Nation has to be engaged in this process.

I am concerned that maybe our Nation is not engaged. Maybe we do not understand that there are those who wish to colonize our country. We cannot allow this unlawful, illegal invasion and insurgency and colonization to occur. The line has been drawn in the sand, and I hope we are willing to cross it and protect our border. The number one duty of government is public safety. We had better get in the fight. Instead of waving the white flag of indifference, we have to understand that our Nation is sovereign. Part of sovereignty is protecting the borders.

Mr. Speaker, history will reflect on these days and one wonders in the long lamentable catalog of human conduct, were these the best of days or were these the end of our days. Only history will tell how we as a people react to protecting our Nation, to establishing border security, to establishing a fair immigration policy, and then establishing a policy on what to do with those folks already here illegally. We can solve these problems, Mr. Speaker. America has always been able to solve every problem. With the good Lord's help, we have solved every problem we have ever had, but we must have the moral will, we must have the moral desire and the moral integrity to defend our borders.

Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 22, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, my office has been inundated by calls from citizens since the announcement that the Mexican government plans to sue the United States over our military troops along our border, hauled into court by the Fox south of the border.

Curtis Krueger of Kingwood, Texas, writes to me:

``Now I read that Mexico is considering suing the United States over border patrols. To not respond to this would be egregious. We as Americans have a sovereign right to have our borders protected by however and whomever we see fit. Our government should vocalize this in every way possible, not sit back and let someone else formulate public opinion. To say we cannot handle the immigrant insurgency in our country flies directly in the face of what we are doing in Iraq. If we are in Iraq to handle insurgents, why aren't we able to do so within our own borders. I, along with a vast majority of Americans, say to you and the government, `We want our country back.'''

America is now going to be sued in our courts by foreign nations for protecting our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. We the people have become we the defendants. Mr. Krueger has got it right. Hopefully our government does.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has to be more self- sufficient when it comes to energy. We import 60 percent of our crude oil from foreign countries. In doing so, we are subject to the illegal price-fixing cartel known as OPEC. The Gulf of Mexico is responsible for one-third of the domestic oil production and 20 percent of the domestic natural gas production. My amendment will end the congressional moratoria on energy exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, the areas shaded in blue are where we drill offshore. We drill offshore of the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and part of Mississippi and Alabama. All of the red on the West Coast, East Coast, and the other parts of the Gulf of Mexico are prohibited by law. Since the 1980s, Congress has been placing appropriations moratoriums on drilling in all these red areas that are outlined on the map, which is about 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that is off limits to energy development.

All of these areas in these coastal States certainly want cheap gasoline and they want natural gas, but they do not want to drill in their neighborhoods. They would rather that Texas and Louisiana keep drilling in our neighborhoods. We can't have it both ways, cheap gasoline and refuse to drill offshore. It seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical, because this does not make sense.

In the 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 natural gas or oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 60 years and produce gasoline for 116 million cars for 15 years. And these are conservative estimates, since these are largely unexplored. There is going to be drilling off this area because Cuba and China are already making plans to drill 47\1/2\ miles off Florida in those rich gulf reserves. It seems to me that we should take advantage of those reserves.

While people talk about the pollution that comes from drilling, many of the problems have been overstated. According to the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report, the largest cause of pollution is from nature. Shown by this chart, 60 percent of the pollution to our shores is by nature itself. So the best way we prevent the number one cause of pollution to our shores is to eliminate this and drill for it.

Boating. All those boats off the shores of our coasts are producing 32 percent of the oil seepage. Tankers from the Middle East are 3 percent. And offshore drilling only accounts for 2 percent of the pollution to our shores.

It obviously makes sense to drill offshore, Mr. Chairman, because nature is the primary cause of the pollution to our beaches.

When Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast this last year, over 100 platforms were damaged. But seepage from the Gulf of Mexico almost did not exist because the valves and the pumps for these offshore rigs were shut off immediately. So it seemed that opening up these areas would be an obvious choice.

We are the only major industrial power in the world that has this silly rule about not drilling offshore. They drill in the North Sea and around the world, and they do so safely. It is important that we use some common sense.

Americans worry about skyrocketing energy prices and lack of energy and want solutions. A decision where we drill is going to have to be made and made very soon by Americans. This is a price issue, but it is also a national security issue. Those who say ``no'' to offshore drilling have no solutions to this problem. We can drill offshore safely, environmentally correct; and when we get over the fear factor and take control of our own energy needs, this country will be better off.

I yield 1 minute to Mr. Green from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to point out to my friend from Florida, we just respectfully disagree. But he has made the argument for why we need to drill somewhere other than the gulf coast. Rita and Katrina basically shut down all the rigs in the gulf coast. Twenty-two percent of the refineries in the United States come from my district. They were shut down for weeks. That is 20 percent of the gasoline for the rest of the United States. We drill in one area. We drill in Hurricane Alley, as Mr. Foley has pointed out. We need to drill off even the sacred west coast of California and off the east coast because there is oil and natural gas there. We need to open up the moratoriums that this Congress has put on us. The American people are demanding answers. They want cheaper gasoline, but yet we refuse to take care of ourselves.

I urge adoption of this amendment which will allow or release the restrictions and then we can start drilling where there is oil and natural gas to take care of ourselves. The hurricanes proved we can do it safely and securely without damage to the environment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 14 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, Mexican nationals are not happy about the U.S.

sending our National Guard to the border. Generalissimo Vicente Fox is not happy about it either, which tells plenty of Americans that it is probably a good idea.

For the first time in a long time, there will be more U.S. troops defending our border than Fox has crossing his border into the United States. Since 1996 there have been more than 200 run-ins between border patrol and highly armed Mexican soldiers coming into the United States.

One Texas sheriff's deputy recalls being outgunned while chasing drug dealers after Mexican soldiers mounted machine guns on the ground 200 yards inside Texas, and when those drug dealers got one of their SUVs struck in the Rio Grande trying to flee back into Mexico, a Mexican military humvee tried to pull it out.

Illegals look at invading America as a challenge. One said this week, ``No Guard, no wall will keep us from crossing. For Mexicans, there are no obstacles.''

American borders and laws are not a challenge. They should be a promise, and I am proud our National Guard is keeping that promise to protect the border and America from invasion.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 14 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to remember the 155 men and women ripped from the ranks, gunned down, stabbed, ambushed, killed. Not soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, but American peace officers fighting an insurgency on American streets.

We honor those who died and those who survive them. They drape their badges in the black cloth of sacrifice to respect their fellow warriors. They lay their friends to rest, but they still risk their own lives to protect and serve.

One of the 13 Texas officers murdered last year, Officer Hank Nava, Jr., of Fort Worth was savagely gunned down by an outlaw on parole who shot Officer Nava in the face.

Just days ago, Detective Vicky Armel of Fairfax County, Virginia, was ambushed by a street punk firing more than 70 rounds from an attack rifle.

We do not know the agony of these officers, but we know their indifference to danger. This Police Week we honor the honorable. We give our gratitude to police officers nationwide for their courage. We say thank you to those who turn toward turmoil so that we may turn toward safety.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Meek for allowing me to make some additional comments with my friends, Mr. Brady from southeast Texas, and Dr. Charles Boustany from Louisiana.

The area of the State of Texas that I represent, Mr. Speaker, borders Louisiana, and also borders the Gulf of Mexico. And today we had another storm hit not Texas, but Washington, DC. Individuals from southeast Texas and east Texas, government leaders, community activists, chambers of commerce presidents, came to Washington to make the case for what occurred in the last 6\1/2\ months in southeast Texas.

By way of review, the ladies of the gulf came into the Gulf of Mexico last fall. The first of those, Katrina, came through, became the sixth largest hurricane, most powerful hurricane to ever hit the gulf coast. And when that occurred, 450,000 people from Louisiana went west. They crossed the Sabine River into Texas. Many of them came into my district.

Many of those people are still there. Several thousand kids are still in school in Texas from Louisiana. So many people are in Texas from Louisiana that we have a mayor's race in New Orleans this Saturday, and the two candidates campaigning for mayor in Louisiana have billboards all over the Houston area soliciting votes from people in Louisiana that happen to be in Texas.

Katrina was mainly a water-damage hurricane. The waters rose, caused damage, the waters stayed a long time. One of the towns of course hit was New Orleans. The national media focused on Katrina day after day after day. But 3 weeks later, another lady of the gulf came. Her name was Rita. She became the fourth most powerful hurricane to ever hit the gulf coast. She hit western Louisiana and east Texas, part of the area that I represent.

The largest evacuation in American history took place in Texas because of Hurricane Rita. Over 2 million people evacuated their homes. In Beaumont alone, 8,320 people were airlifted out of hospitals, in the middle of the night with C-130 transport planes, to 14 different States.

The first responders before Hurricane Rita hit loaded their police cars, their emergency equipment, their fire trucks, their front-end loaders, and

even helicopters on two enormous cargo ships that were in the Port of Beaumont. Those ships deploy cargo to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The community, because of Hurricane Rita, was left without electricity for over 3 weeks; 75,000 homes were destroyed. Several thousand homes to this day have not been repaired, and people are still living under blue roofs.

That part of the gulf coast, Mr. Speaker, is a petrochemical area, refinery area. Eleven percent of the Nation's gasoline is refined out of that small area in southeast Texas. Thirty percent of the Nation's aviation fuel is manufactured there. And the Port of Beaumont, as I mentioned, that deploys one-third of the military cargo going to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But this hurricane was not a water-damage hurricane, although there was a storm surge. It was a wind-damage hurricane, and people lost their homes not to rising water, to losing their roofs and water coming in because of rain.

And that whole issue is being dealt with, or not being dealt with, with the insurance companies because of their refusal in many cases to even pay for the damage because it was not water damage, it was wind damage.

But be that as it may, the devastation affected the rice industry. This part of southeast Texas is a rice-growing area. As with Dr. Boustany and his area, this part of the Nation supplies a lot of rice for not only the United States but other nations.

This year the rice farmers lost their second crop, that is the crop that they make money on. And now, rice season is back upon us. But to show you the devastation from Hurricane Rita, I talked to the owner of two John Deere stores there in southeast Texas that supply the farm machinery for the rice farmers.

He says he has not sold one piece of farm machinery this year because the rice farmers cannot afford to buy them. Those rice farmers now, many of them will go out of business and that land will be turned into something else. But be that as it may, Hurricane Rita was not one of those issues that caught the National attention, because local officials, many of them that were here today, took care of business as soon as Hurricane Rita showed up. There was very little loss of life.

And because apparently for no loss of life, that was not a story that the national media sought to portray. Mr. Speaker, we just hope in the supplemental that two things occur: that the people of Louisiana are treated not unfairly, but the people in Texas are treated equal to the people in Louisiana.

Rita was a hurricane just as powerful as Hurricane Katrina, and that the funding be the same, and that the line between Louisiana and Texas, the Sabine River, not separate fairness; that fairness go across the river and treat all Americans the same.