Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638.

Defense Division of H.R. 2638--OM, ARNG--Non-foam, Special Polymer Twin Hemisphere Pad Sets for Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops Helmet Retrofit Kits--$1,280,000.

Defense Division of H.R. 2638--OM, N--Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops Helmet Retrofit Kits to Sustain Navy IPE Pool-- $1,120,000.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: SKYDEX Technologies, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 12503 E. Euclid Drive, Suite 60, Centennial, Colorado 80111.

Description of Request: Both earmarks will address an unfunded requirement of the Army National Guard and the Navy to improve shock- absorption padding to retrofit helmets. The replacement material is a durable and protective polymer. This funding would build on roughly $2 million that has been allocated for this purpose over the last two years.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to speak on a subject that I have spoken on many, many times over the course of my career in this Congress. This will be the last time I will be able to address this body in a Special Order on this particular issue.

I am reminded of nearly a decade ago when I arrived in the House of Representatives in 1999 and there was really no organized effort to facilitate a discussion on the critical issue of immigration and immigration reform. The task I felt at that time was to bring it to the Nation's attention any way I could, being one Member of the House and as a freshman, there are relatively few ways to accomplish that goal. One way was to address the House through the Special Order process, and I did that night after night after night.

I would sometimes walk away from here thinking it may have been a futile gesture. I would leave here and it would be quite late walking across to my office in Longworth, and I would look back at the Capitol dome and I would see the light shining on it and I would think about the importance of what I was trying to accomplish here. And at my office, there were always lights on the phones, I could see people calling and hear the fax machine going, and I knew there were people out there who were listening to this discussion and who were responding to it and that always gave me the energy to continue the discussion, to come back the next night and do whatever I could to get people to focus on what I considered to be and what I still consider to be one of the most serious problems facing the Nation. Certainly it is one of the most serious domestic problems facing the Nation.

Now we are talking about a financial crisis and it has sucked up all of the energy in the room and all of the energy on Capitol Hill. All of the oxygen has been sucked up by this discussion, and I understand why. It is a crucial issue, crucial to our constituents and enormously important throughout the world, as a matter of fact.

It is important I think also to recognize there is an aspect of this discussion which does go back to the original issue of illegal immigration into the country, and it is no small part of the problem that we now face.

Several months ago in my own county, Jefferson County, Colorado, the district attorney indicted several realtors and mortgage brokers for fraudulently developing documents for people who were here illegally so they could buy homes. By the way, it is not necessarily illegal in the United States, as peculiar as this may sound, it is not illegal for someone who is here illegally to purchase a home, but it is certainly illegal to doctor the documents, to falsify the Social Security and tax records. Now this is a tiny story. How does it relate to this issue.

One county in Colorado, three or four realtors, three or four mortgage brokers, accounted for 250 homes being sold in just that county in Colorado. Across the Nation, this phenomenon accounts for hundreds of thousands of homes that have been sold to people who are here illegally. There have been major industries, certainly major banks in this country that were devoted to trying to identify illegal aliens as a niche market to both make them loans, to identify them as potential bank customers so they can get the mortgage.

We saw hundreds of millions, in fact hundreds of billions of dollars flow into these mortgages. Now what has happened? The economy has gone sour. Immigration reform efforts have gotten to the point where we actually are now conducting raids at some of the major factories and meat packing plants across the country. And also States have taken on this responsibility themselves and have passed laws. Because the Federal Government has been so lax, we have States taking up the burden and passing laws to do something about illegal immigration in their State, and local communities doing the same thing.

The result is lots of people are leaving, going home. To the extent so much so that in Mexico, the president of Mexico issued an urgent plea for us to do something to stop the flow of illegal aliens back to Mexico because they couldn't handle it. They wanted us to secure our border, maybe to build a fence. There were so many returning that they could not handle the influx.

What does that mean for us and the issue of this mortgage problem that we are having? It means that all of those people simply walked away from those mortgages, those hundreds of thousands of homes that were on the market. They walked away because of course they had nothing at stake. They were given 100 percent loans, sometimes even more than that. Their names were oftentimes falsified. They had nothing at stake, were illegally in the country, so it was easy to walk away. They walked away from the homes and we are stuck with the mortgages, and they are now part of this huge bailout we are trying to focus on and deal with as the Congress of the United States.

We haven't talked about that as an issue, but I suggest to you it is an enormous issue. No one wants to talk about it, just like no one wanted to talk about this issue for the last 10 years.

Only recently have we seen a bit of a change. In 1999, I founded the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and six people agreed to join initially. The task I felt again was something that I had to undertake. It was one of those things that I decided to add to the repertoire, if you will, of talking about it here at night, forming an immigration reform caucus and trying to get people to pay attention.

Well, there have been--I don't know--hundreds of speeches, literally thousands of radio spots that I have done and interviews that I have done on this particular issue, thousands of speeches that I have given around the country.

Things have begun to change, and I am extremely happy about that. We certainly have more members of the caucus now headed by Brian Bilbray, over 100 members, both Republicans and Democrats, and a number of things have happened around the country that are worthy of note.

The Minuteman Project showed the Nation how a few hundred concerned citizens could shut down border traffic with lawn chairs and cell phones, just doing what they could do in their spare time as American citizens looking for a lawful way to address the issue of illegal immigration. Thousands of people did it. It was a wonderful thing to observe even though, by our own President, they were called vigilantes, and of course, they were the people who were actually enforcing the law as opposed to the President, who was ignoring it.

We've had governors of southern border States, Democrats and Republicans alike, declare states of emergency in their individual States because of the massive number of illegal immigrants who have come across the borders. We've had small towns, communities all over this country do what Mayor Barletta did in the small town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania when he passed ordinances against hiring or renting to illegal aliens. He earned national attention and a crucial battle with the ACLU for that.

Of course, I mentioned earlier there are other States, States like Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, that have taken up this issue themselves because, again, they looked for help from the Federal Government and could not find it, but they have passed wonderful bills to deal with this, saying that employers in their respective States have to use the E-Verify system to make sure that the people they have hired are here legally.

Legislatively, we've seen other things that seemed impossible a while back. In October of 2004, Speaker Hastert's H.R. 10, which came out of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, was passed in the House, and it substantially targeted immigration-related weaknesses related to terrorist travel.

The following month, I used a rarely employed conference rule to force a Republican Conference meeting and postpone a vote on the Intelligence reform bills because immigration-related provisions had been stripped from the conference report. The shutdown resulted in the promise that became the Real ID Act, which became the law the following year. It mandates standards for the issuance of driver's licenses that would preclude the eligibility of illegal aliens.

In 2006, the Secure Fence Act became law, mandating the construction of approximately 800 miles of fencing and infrastructure on the U.S.- Mexico border. Three hundred miles of that fence have been completed.

The most important tool in forcing Congress to deal with immigration is the amendment process that we have here. In 2003, I began offering amendments to spending bills, seeking to enforce Federal laws that prohibit sanctuary cities. This was a new strategy, and I began to build a record for all of my colleagues. No longer could Members just speak in platitudes about immigration. They had to put their money where their mouths were and cast a vote up or down on these real issues.

I brought amendments on the sanctuary policy's temporary protected status by removing reimbursements for illegal alien health care, by repealing food stamps for immigrants, by suspending the Visa Waiver Program, by revoking visas for countries that refuse reparations.

As the votes began to pile up, the voting habits of my colleagues began to change. The first sanctuary amendment I offered in 2003 got 102 votes. Now we regularly pass these amendments. The real catalyst was President Bush's speech in 2004, which caused widespread outrage with the amnesty proposal. Our constituents showing the vast disconnect between themselves and the beltway elite started making their views known with the benefits of high-paid lobbyists.

Like most Americans, I was delighted to watch the immigration proposal go down to defeat in the U.S. Senate. First and foremost, it demonstrated how widely unpopular the notion of granting amnesty to illegal aliens is with the American people. More importantly, however, Congress' rejection of the bill may have signified the high watermark for advocates of ever increasing levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, into the United States.

Supporters of the President's immigration plan were forced to even change the rhetoric of the debate as they tried desperately to invent a nonoffensive euphemism for amnesty. We heard it referred to as ``earned legalization,'' as ``comprehensive reform'' and

as ``regularization.'' Despite their efforts, however, Americans made it quite clear that they opposed amnesty.

It's not surprising, but the amnesty proposal contained within the bill isn't the only fuel that fueled the grassroots brush fire that killed that bill. Dramatic increases in legal immigration levels proved to be nearly as unpopular as amnesty, and it also contributed to the demise of the legislation.

Public concerns about dramatically increased levels of legal immigration helped to derail a similar Senate proposal in 2006 after Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation analyzed how many foreigners the bill would allow into the United States over the next 20 years, some 60 million people. Sheer numbers began to transcend anecdotal stories about friendly immigrant neighbors on the minds of the American public.

Indeed, the protracted debate over immigration has voters increasingly focused on what is a very reasonable question: What kind of immigration policy serves our national interest? Not surprisingly, few have stepped forward to defend the status quo or the massive increases proposed by the Senate leadership or the President. Mr. Rector penned a report applicable to that year's Senate concoction. Despite all the talk about how critical low-skilled immigrants are to economic growth, his study confirmed what many already knew, that low- skilled legal and illegal immigrants are a net cost to taxpayers, not a net gain, just as their native-born counterparts are.

The Senate bill would have cost our children and grandchildren $2.5 trillion due to amnesty provisions and increased levels of legal immigration authorized by the legislation. Again, it was Mr. Rector's analysis that deeply shook the public's confidence in the Senate's credibility in handling the issue. Once more, the question about legal immigration became relevant in light of that information.

Now, I'm not saying that America is ready to install a ``no vacancy'' sign on the Statue of Liberty. At the same time, we cannot discount the increasingly disconcerting public feeling that honoring our tradition of immigration while decreasing the yearly total of immigrants to more sustainable levels are not mutually exclusive goals. A significant decrease similar to that one in the Commission on Immigration Reform advocated in the mid-1990s would be a good first step toward creating a more orderly and sustainable immigration policy in America, such as, by the way, eliminating chain migration and the visa lottery. I continue to believe that a return to traditional immigration levels as well as stepped up enforcement can be won in a matter of months and years, not decades.

For one reason I believe that this is what will happen in this seminal legislative moment in my House tenure is that Mr. Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began the process in late 2005 of crafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill--the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. It passed 239 to 182. Not only did the enforcement bill first receive broad bipartisan support on the final passage but so did stand-alone amendments to build border fencing and to reduce legal immigration by eliminating the Visa Diversity program.

Our immigration caucus played a vital role in making sure that not so much as a sense of Congress was allowed to suggest that we needed guest workers.

There is still, of course, much to do. I am proud of the accomplishments of the caucus. I am proud of the accomplishments that my colleagues and I, who have fought for immigration reform, have made to this point in time.

Certainly, it is the reason, by the way, that I ran for the Presidency of the United States, for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. With little idea, in fact no idea, that I would actually become the President of the United States in that process, I was nonetheless inspired to do what I did and run for the nomination for President in order to force the people who were on the stage with me during that period of time to address this issue. There was a reluctance in doing so. I know I started the process out in February of last year and ended it in December, and between that time that I started in February to December, there was a complete change in the way each person who was running for that nomination addressed the issue of immigration. Finally, every single person, including the present nominee of the party, agreed that we had to secure the borders first. We must do that. There was no longer ambiguity in their statements about this. Our borders have to be secure.

Now, I hope of course that the rhetoric turns into action. I commend to my colleagues here who will be returning next year that their task will be ahead of them to make sure that that is what is done.

So we have done a great many things. There are still a lot of concerns that most of us have about where we go from here. It is imperative that we stay strong in our opposition to amnesty of any kind. It is imperative that we push for a border fence and for one that is, in fact, a real deterrent to the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

It is imperative that we never, ever do to anybody else what we've done to Agents Ramos and Compean, who are still imprisoned for essentially doing what they were hired to do in protecting our borders.

There are threats to our sovereignty like the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the North American Union. They continue to exist in some form or other. Legal immigration is still at an historical high. The effects of our language and of our culture threaten not only what kind of a nation we will be but whether we will be a nation at all.

This leads me to the next part of this discussion and, perhaps, even to the more serious part that we must begin to work with as we have now accomplished a number of goals that we have set and that I have set, essentially, for myself here, which is one of the reasons why I chose not to run again. I mean, when I look back at where I started in this process and where we are now 10 years later, I feel like I have accomplished many of the goals I set for myself in this body. There are many people here who I can turn to now and hand the baton to and know that they will take it up--it's wonderful--to Judge Poe and to Steve King. I could go on and on with the number of people who are here today who are committed to doing something about true immigration reform. Hence, I feel very comfortable in taking my leave of this place at this time, but I do so with this caveat:

We must never forget the real threat that exists as a result of massive immigration, both legal and illegal, into this country when it merges with what I have often called the cult of multiculturalism. It permeates our society, this cult does. It is an emphasis on all of the things that pull us apart as a society--an emphasis on creating linguistic and cultural enclaves, on turning us into a cultural and linguistic Tower of Babel. It is a focus on all of the negative aspects of Western civilization and the United States' exemplification of Western civilization's greatest attributes.

The colleges and institutions of higher education and certainly even our high schools and our K-12 educational system is fraught with this idea of this cult of multiculturalism and the attitude about America and about the west. It permeates all of the textual materials of most of the professors who are at these institutions, who always confront the issue of America and the west and western society in the most negative terms, who are always tearing us down--who we are, what we've built, what we're all about. This is the cult of multiculturalism. When millions of people come into this country, either legally or illegally, who are also interested in ideas and who are interested in things other than becoming an American, we become susceptible to a disease that really will destroy us. It is a disease that works its way from within the body politic in this country, and it is susceptible to an attack from without.

We see what's happening today. We have been calling it a war on terror. It is a misnomer. It is incorrect to label it that way. It is not a war on terror that we face and that we are trying to advance. It is a war against radical Islam. Terror is a tactic of radical Islamists. It is not the entity with which we are at war.

Lao Tzu, of course, is a famous Chinese philosopher, and he has stated and

has been quoted over the years because of his insight into both the nature of war and into the nature of human beings. He said at one point that there are two things that are desperately needed in order to be successful in any clash. One is the knowledge of who your enemy really is. Who are they? What makes them tick? Why do they do the things they are doing? The other is, he says, a knowledge of who you are. We have to understand who it is we are fighting. Again, it is not simply terrorists.

It is radical Islam. Islam's hostility towards the West has nothing to do with American troops in Muslim lands or America's support for Israel or the plight of the Palestinians. The first thing we must understand is that Muslims believe the Koran is the word of god as dictated to Mohammed. It cannot be interpreted by man. This is troubling because the book's passages call for the destruction of opposing religions, the extermination of non-Muslims, and the imposition of a worldwide caliphate.

Among other things, the Koran tells Muslims: those who disbelieve we shall roast them in fire, they may feel the punishment. When you meet the unbelievers, smite them, and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them. Take the infidels captive and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. They that reject faith, take not friends from their ranks and make them flee in the way of Allah . . . seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take no friends from their ranks. Fight them until there is no dissension, and religion is entirely Allah's. Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Prepare for disbelievers chains, yokes, and a blazing fire. Cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve and strike off their heads and fingertips.

This is Islam's instruction book, and the instructions are quite clear.

So whether we want to admit it or not, the Western world is locked in a struggle against this form of Islam--a religion whose practitioners and adherents are inextricably linked to terrorism. And if we are to successfully defend ourselves against the desire of our enemies to impose a caliphate on the world, we must first be willing to openly identify them, say who they are.

Politically correct politicians in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere are quick to dispute notions that Islam is inherently violent, and they flatly reject that Islam is engaged in a global struggle to dominate the world. But a quick look around the globe tells a different story.

While the most obvious clashes between Islam and the West are taking place in the streets of Israel, in the mountains of Afghanistan, and in the deserts of Iraq, Islam's foot soldiers are waging their war against non-Muslims in all corners of the world.

In Sudan, the conflict between the north and the south was basically a conflict between Arab Muslims and southern black Christians.

A visiting teacher from Denmark was jailed for insulting Islam after she let her class name a teddy bear ``Mohammad.''

In Thailand, a nation of more than 60 million that is more than 95 percent Buddhist--a nation that is known worldwide for its friendly people and enduring spirit of hospitality--some 3,000 Thais have been killed in brutal uprisings by Muslims who are determined to replace Thailand's democratic kingdom with an Islamic State.

Last week, Islamic militants in the southern Thai town of Pattani shot a state official some 30 times with a machine gun as he arrived to visit a school. After the attack, the gunman dragged his body out of the truck and chopped off his head in front of the horrified students and teachers.

In the Philippines--a former U.S. territory known more for its food and cathedrals than for Islamic extremism--the government has also been struggling with Islamic militants seeking to overthrow the democratic system and ``return'' the country to its ``pre-Christian 'Moor' national identity.''

This insurgency has gone on for decades and claimed more than 120,000 lives. Over the last few years, Filipino soldiers, priests, other Christians, and non-Muslims have been routinely captured and beheaded.

In Indonesia--which is struggling to maintain a democratic system amid calls for the imposition of Sharia law--dozens of demonstrators recently attacked the local ``Playboy'' magazine office, injuring police officers and damaging property. Keep in mind that the Indonesian version of the magazine does not even contain nudity, and is primarily dedicated to Western pop culture and fashion.

After the incident, it was not the militants, but Erwin Arnada--the magazine's editor--who was arrested and forced to face charges of violating the country's indecency laws and faces a long prison sentence.

For more than 40 years, Malaysia--a former British colony--has successfully balanced its democratic secular form of government with the plurality of its citizens' Muslim roots. Slowly, however, these roots are ripping up the fabric of freedom in this country.

In 2005, the country's Federal court system dismissed appeals by four Muslims who were sentenced to 3 years in jail for wrongfully attempting to convert from Islam. Despite the Malaysian constitution's guarantee to all people the right to profess and practice one's own religion, the court disregarded the Federal constitution and ceded jurisdiction of the case to a Sharia court.

In 2007, over the objections of his Hindu wife and family, Emm Moorthy--part of the first Malaysian team to climb Mount Everest and an army commando--was declared a Muslim after his death and buried as one.

In another case, local authorities refused to recognize the conversion of a Muslim woman to become a Catholic. In addition, the local registrar refused her application for marriage to a Catholic man because Islam prohibits Muslims from marrying non-Muslims. Courageously, she filed suit, optimistic that the Malaysian constitution's provisions for equal protection and freedom would win the day. Unfortunately, amid Islamist protestors' shouts of ``Allah-o- Akbar'' inside the courtroom, a judge dismissed her application finding that ``ethnic Malays'' are constitutionally defined as ``Muslims,'' making conversion from Islam and her marriage to a Catholic man illegal.

The judge went on to say that he could not allow her to change her religion because granting her such an exemption would encourage future converts.

That's part of the world that we seldom hear about but where actions like this are everyday occurrences. These developments in Asia and Africa are problematic, but the wave of Islam is also washing over Europe's shores. While Islamists work to eliminate legal protections for free speech and free association in Asia and Africa in order to replace pluralism with Islam, they are using these freedoms and the legal system in Europe in order to determine democratic institutions and replace them with Sharia Law, undermining democratic institutions.

Sharia Law calls for brutal punishment, such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or having children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves, lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol and a failure of women to wear a veil or head-scarf.

Muslims in the UK recently used a loophole in the Federal arbitration law to make Islamic Sharia Law and the decisions of the Sharia court legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom.

A recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion in the United Kingdom found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide. Another 32 percent of the British Muslim youth living believe that killing for the religion is acceptable, while 20 percent are unsure.

Just days after the London subway attack, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents ``paid the price'' for British support in the Iraqi campaign.

Another academic, George Hajjar, went even further proclaiming, ``I hope every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war and will shift the war not only to America but to . . . wherever America may be.'' He added, ``There are no innocent people,'' and referred to the victims of the attack as ``collateral casualties.''

In the Netherlands, the number of Muslims has grown from just 54 in 1909 to almost 1 million in 2004. These changes have not come without costs.

2002, Pim Fortoon, a politician who expressed concern about the rapid influx of Muslim immigration, was shot six times in the head as he walked to his car. During his court appearance, the killer told the judge in killing Fortoon he ``acted on behalf of the country's Muslims.''

2004. Theo Van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker who had the temerity to make a movie critical of Islam's treatment of women, was shot and killed by a 26-year old Dutch born Muslim in broad daylight in a busy Amsterdam street. After shooting Van Gogh, the jihadist pinned a note to his body threatening the co-author of the script. Then he began the task of decapitating Mr. Van Gogh's lifeless body.

Another Dutch politician who has raised concerns about the danger of Islam's rise in Holland, Geert Wilders, has received numerous death threats and is forced to travel with 24-hour day security. According to Mr. Wilders, the Dutch government has completely capitulated to Islamists in the wake of these politically motivated murders.

He recently told the Hudson Institute, ``We have gone from calls by one cabinet members to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays to statements by another cabinet member that Islam is part of Dutch culture,'' to an affirmation by the Christian Democrat Attorney General that he is willing to accept Sharia Law in the Netherlands. And there is another majority.

We now have cabinet members who pass with passports from Morocco and Turkey. More alarming still, one half of Dutch Muslims say they understand the 9/11 attacks.

Before I go on, going back to the United Kingdom for a moment. The largest mosque in the world is being built outside London. Recently Archbishop of Canterbury said they should have two tracks, a two-track system in England: one Sharia Law and one traditional English law. Mohammed is now the most popular name in England for a child.

France is also gripped by the crisis. Muslim rioting gripped the country for weeks last year resulting in death and unprecedented destruction of private property. There are hundreds of areas inside Paris and inside and around Paris where police do not go. They are entirely Muslim areas, and the police are essentially afraid to go in there.

The PEW Research Center reported that more than half of all French Muslims loyal to Islam is greater than their loyalty to France, and one in three do not object to suicide attacks.

The demographics, of course, are significant, and that is what is causing a significant change in the entire attitude of Western Europe about such things as Islam and the changing of Western laws.

That is the point of this, that all of this comes with a cost. There is a challenge to western civilization. We have a system that was established by the concept of the rule of law and many other things that unite us as a Nation in the past and united the West in the past are being threatened and destroyed.

Before liberals in America roll out the Islamic welcome mat any farther, they ought to look closely at Europe. As I noted, many Muslims in Europe openly expressed a desire to replace secular democracies there with Islamic caliphates. Hardly surprising when you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing the radical ideology, an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of Western democracy, such as gender equity, pluralism, and individual liberty.

These lessons are unfolding in plain sight across the Atlantic in Europe, but what many Americans don't realize is that these same problems are beginning to manifest themselves here in the United States in parts of Michigan, New York, and Virginia. Yes, yet America's political leaders remain asleep at the switch.

The PEW Research Center, for example, asked American Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29, When are suicide bombings justified? Twenty-six percent said that they were always justified. Another 15 percent said they were often justified.

Another potential threat, settlement poses to the United States is made worse by the fact of the sheer volume of both legal and illegal immigration into our country. Combine that with the rise of culture relativism, political correctness, and the lefts' obsession with diversity, and you have a recipe for disaster as immigrants are prevented from assimilating and separate ethnic cultural communities spring up all over the United States.

We are again confronted with this situation, and we are made less able to deal with it because of this, the political correctness that-- and this multicultural society that we are creating here. It makes us weaker as a society to deal with this.

We are told constantly, as I said earlier, about the deficiencies of the West and that we are not really a country at all, that the United States isn't just a Nation of sovereign people, it is just a place on the planet. Just a place on the continent.

It's called America, and if you live here, you're an American. There are no other ties that should bind us, certainly not a linguistic tie, certainly not the English language. That's what they say. I say it is the imperative tie that must bind us. It is the glue that holds our society together. It is the thing that allows us to communicate with each other. And it is imperative that we have something because we have so many things in this country that pull us apart, it is imperative that we have something, anything, that pulls us together. Language is that one thing.

Our people come from everywhere around the world from every different kind of culture, religion, color, historical background, and language. We have--something when they come here has got to begin the process of assimilation because immigration without assimilation is creating a phenomena that is like putting a gun to our heads.

Examples of this kind of political correctness go on and on. Los Angeles Roosevelt High School. An 11th grade teacher told a nationally syndicated radio program that she hates the textbooks that she's been told to use and the State-mandated history curriculum because they ignore students of Mexican ancestry. Because the students don't see themselves in the curriculum, the teacher has chosen to ``modify the curriculum'' by replacing it with activities like mural walks intended to open the students' eyes to their indigenous culture.

A friend of the teacher invited to help with the mural walk went on to tell the students, ``Your education has been one big lie after another.''

In a textbook called, ``Across the Centuries,'' which is used widely across America for the teaching of 7th grade history, the term ``jihad'' is defined as ``to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil.''

In 2002, the new guidelines for teaching history in the New Jersey public schools failed to mention America's Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims, or the Mayflower. After this became public, New Jersey changed the guidelines.

In a Prentice Hall history textbook used by students in Palm Beach County high schools, titled ``A World Conflict,'' the first five pages of the World War II chapter cover such topics as discrimination against women in the Armed Forces, racial segregation during the war, and internment of Japanese Americans, far fewer than are dedicated to the 292,000 Americans who died in the conflict, fighting against totalitarianism and genocide.

A Washington State teacher substituted the word ``winter'' for the word ``Christmas'' in a carol to be sung at a school program so as not to appear to be favoring one faith over another.

In a school district in New Mexico, the introduction to a textbook called ``500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures'' states that it was written ``in response to the Bicentennial celebration of the 1776 American Revolution and its lies.'' Its stated purpose was to ``celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders.'' The chapter headings include ``Death to the Invader,'' ``U.S. Conquest and Betrayal,'' ``We Are Now a U.S. Colony,'' ``In Occupied America,'' and ``They Stole Our Land.'' This is a textbook in a New Mexico school district.

Nicholas DeGenova, an assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia

University, told students that he wanted to see ``a million Mogadishus''--a reference to an operation in Somalia in 1993 in which elite U.S. Army personnel were pinned down in a fierce firefight. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded. DeGenova added that, ``The only true heroes are those who find ways to help defeat the U.S. military.'' Administrators at Columbia University expressed regret, saying they were ``appalled by the statements,'' but took no action to dismiss DeGenova, who is still teaching. Teaching, by the way, is a liberal way to interpret his activity.

At Royal Oak Intermediate School in Covina, California, students in Len Cesene's seventh grade history class fasted last week--this was some time ago, last week was the quote from the article--last week to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. His letter to parents explained that ``in an attempt to promote a greater understanding and empathy towards the Muslim religion and toward other cultures, I am encouraging students to participate in an extra credit assignment. Students may choose to fast for one, two, or three days. During this time, students may only drink water during daylight hours.''

A Federal judge in Brooklyn interpreted New York City policy on holiday displays in public schools allow for the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Muslim Crescent--but not the display of a Christian Nativity scene. The judge based his decision on the notion that the Muslim Crescent and Jewish Menorah are ``secular'' symbols, while the Christian Nativity scene is not, and the list goes on and on.

Certainly, many people have heard about the professor from the University of Colorado who claimed that all the people that were killed in the Twin Towers deserved to be killed; they were little Eichmanns. Again, it goes on and on.

And individually, these kinds of incidents may seem regrettable and harmless. They are just examples of Americans' tolerance for diversity and multiculturalism. Collectively, they will subject our Nation to death by a thousand cuts.

Islamic leaders have seen the inability of our government institutions to maintain cultural cohesion, and despite the mainstream media's attempt to report it because of political correctness, they are no longer shy about expressing their own intentions.

According to the Manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, ``Our work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.''

According to Professor Hatem Bazian of the University of California at Berkeley, ``It's about time that we have an intifada in this country, that changes, fundamentally the political dynamics here.''

Yousef Khattab, of the U.S.-based Islamic Thinkers Society, recently said in an interview that ``Islam will dominate, that's what it will be. We want to see Sharia Law here, and it will be. The flag of Islam will be, God willing, on the White House, if that's where we choose it to be.''

According to a co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relation, CAIR, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, ``We Muslims have a chance, in America, to be the moral leadership in America. The problem is when? It will happen, I have no doubt in my mind. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.''

The head of another Muslim group, Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, Imam Johari Abdul Malik, told a crowd, ``Before Allah closes our eyes for the last time you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America--that's where we are now--to the first religion in America.''

Muslim ``activist'' Abu Waleed told a crowd of reporters, ``We are not Muslims . . . who are simply here to integrate and become part of democracy and freedom and adopt these values. Rather, what we hope to do is to engage with the . . . society to . . . one day implement the Sharia over manmade law and sharia over . . . Washington, D.C.''

A Muslim man recently told CNN's Anderson Cooper, ``We are bound by the rules of Islam. If a woman runs away, she must be killed.''

Our essentially ``open door'' policy of unlimited legal and illegal immigration may seem like a harmless manifestation of our national tradition of welcoming newcomers with open arms, but it is an invitation to our destruction.

For example, the American left's dogmatic adherence to the idea of ``diversity'' and their tendency to elevate it above all other values also led them to establish the visa lottery, or ``Diversity Visa'' program in 1990. Hundreds of thousands of people have come with these kinds of programs throughout the United States, and we do this at our peril.

We were a Nation that was identifiable. It was identifiable by the kind of language that we spoke, the religion that we observed. Just an example of what we were at one time and what we must think about as what held us together, the ideas, the attitude, yes, the religion, yes, the language. They were something that at one point in time held us together as a Nation.

The Trinity Church case in 1892 said, ``If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its law, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth . . . this is a Christian Nation.'' Justice Brewer.

``We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God,'' Justice Sutherland, 1931, the Macintosh case.

1983, ``To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not . . . a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.''

And then, of course, later decisions began to erode that concept of religious similarity in this country.

Who we were, this is something that I want to read and will tell you at the end who wrote this; although, probably the content of it will let us know. It was written on June 6, 1944.

``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

``Lead them straight and true; give them strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

``They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

``They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of consequence. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

``Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

``And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

``Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our Armed Forces.

``And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrow that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

``And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith

in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

``With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

``Thy will be done, Almighty God.

``Amen.''

That, of course, was the prayer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as our men embarked upon D Day. This prayer, I wonder if it could be said today by the leader of this country. I wonder if the President of the United States would have the courage to start off a prayer asking for the Lord to help protect our religion, our civilization, our Republic, and to set free a suffering humanity. Would we add the words ``our civilization,'' ``our religion''? Could we? Do they mean anything? What do they describe today to anyone? Or are we too afraid to mention this for fear that it will be perceived by someone as narrow-minded?

And so, therefore, we do not discuss who we are or at least who we were. But just as dangerous an event as D Day was and just as much as we needed prayer to protect the men who were going across that channel, we find ourselves in a world that's equally dangerous. We find ourselves daily facing events that challenge us in so many ways and are as dangerous and as threatening to our very existence as was the threat posed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.

They come from a different source, those threats. They are not identifiable as a single nation. It makes it harder for us to deal with it. But we as a country must do so.

And this is my parting thought for this Congress, for this Nation. Pray for the same thing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed for: strength, courage to defeat an enemy that has every intention of defeating us and destroying Western civilization. Do not walk quietly into the night of a dark age. Know who we are. Know who the enemy is. Hold up this Nation's flag. Take back our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend to the people of Taiwan my heartiest congratulations as we approach October 10 or National Day--the founding day of the Republic of China.

Since Taiwan's government was originally founded on the Chinese mainland nearly one hundred years ago, the people and government of the republic have made great economic and political strides.

Over the last several decades, Taiwan has been transformed from a one-party state, into a thriving global economic powerhouse, a generous and responsible member of the international community, and one of the most vibrant multi-party democracies in the Western Pacific.

Madam Speaker, this year was an especially eventful year in Taiwan's democratic evolution as voters on the island went to the polls to elect a new president and vote on a nationwide referendum. The results saw Taiwan's voters overseeing the second peaceful transfer of power there since Taiwan's remarkable transition to democracy in the 1990's.

The Taiwanese people deserve our respect and admiration for moving forward with this historic election--courageously going to the polls despite pressure and threats of violence from the Beijing authorities and their so-called ``anti-secession law.''

Again, I rise to congratulate the Taiwanese people, and I hope that this important holiday will continue to inspire everyone on the island to continue working together to preserve a bright future for democratic Taiwan.

Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss a regrettable situation which we have been monitoring for some time now.

I am talking about the expropriation of the Half Moon Bay Resort in Antigua, which belonged to a group of American citizens, who developed the property into an internationally recognized vacation destination and have owned it for over 35 years.

The Hurricanes that hit the Caribbean in 1995 severely damaged the resort, making it necessary to negotiate a financial package to rebuild the property. Instead of assisting the owners in that regard, the Government of Antigua saw this as an opportunity to force the owners to sell it--at what would be its lowest value--to certain ``friends of the Government''. When the owners refused to sell and expressed a determination to rebuild instead, the Government of Antigua responded by repeatedly blocking their efforts to do so.

The Government of Antigua made its first overt attempt to expropriate the property in December 2000. At that time, some twenty Congressmen and Senators intervened by writing directly to the Prime Minister of Antigua and the Antiguan Ambassador in Washington, expressing their concern at such a move. That caused the Government of Antigua to back off for a few months.

However, after a short time, the Government of Antigua returned to its original plan and proceeded to a parliamentary declaration allowing the Government to exercise eminent domain over the property. The owners defended their rights and spent the next six years in litigation--with our State Department doing little more than placing an occasional inquiry with the Government of Antigua as to how they were getting along.

In June of 2007--a year ago--the Privy Council in London reviewed the case brought by the U.S. owners and, taking the lines of our own Kelo Supreme Court Decision one step further, decided that the Government of Antigua had the right of eminent domain to forcibly acquire the property, even when ``public purpose'' is applied to competing commercial interests. However, the Privy Council also confirmed the owner's right to fair and adequate compensation to be paid within a reasonable time. Now, a year later, the owners have once again had to return to the Courts, for an order compelling the Government to provide that compensation.

By expropriating property belonging to American Citizens and by ignoring the rights of the owners to prompt and fair compensation, the Government of Antigua and Barbuda has breached the WTO International Trade and Investment Rules, as well as the Caribbean Basin Initiative and can no longer claim any rights accorded to preferred trading partners.

I hope the government of Antigua and Barbuda understands the impact this may have on their treatment under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and how this totalitarian seizure of private property will affect the future of foreign investment there.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Taiwan's full membership in the United Nations.

Taiwan is an independent, peace loving, and democratic nation that enjoys formal diplomatic relations with more than twenty other nations. In addition, the island nation maintains informal bilateral relations with more than one hundred other countries, precisely because those other countries know that the government in Beijing does not--as it often asserts--speak for democratic Taiwan.

Beijing often argues that Taiwan's 23 million people are represented by the unelected government of the People's Republic of China in international bodies like the United Nations as well. But the Beijing authorities routinely threaten to attack Taiwan, and have deployed more than 1,000 missiles on its southeastern coast aimed directly at the island. So while it might be politically expedient for China to argue that it represents Taiwan, no fair-minded person or government could honestly be expected to believe such a preposterous claim. And of course, most countries realize this.

As I mentioned earlier, while Taiwan's government enjoys formal diplomatic ties with some two dozen nations, Taipei maintains more than 100 quasi-embassies or ``trade offices'' in nearly every country in the world. And most of these countries--including the United States-- maintain a reciprocal mission in Taiwan's capital, Taipei. Why? The reason is obvious: because we all realize that the totalitarian government of China doesn't really speak for the people of democratic Taiwan.

The United Nations is no different.

Madam Speaker, Taiwan's new government has attempted to strike a more conciliatory tone this year, asking only for Taiwan's participation in U.N. affiliated agencies rather than for full membership. This modest proposal is a good start, and I hope the Bush Administration will direct our U.N. representative to support it.

Should Taiwan be successful in its quest for meaningful participation in the United Nations this year, I sincerely hope that they will build on that success by applying for full U.N. membership next year. After all, Taiwan maintains its own military, elects its own leaders, conducts its own foreign affairs, controls its own territory, has a larger population than Australia, and boasts one of the most dynamic economies in the world.

Simply put, Taiwan is more than qualified for membership, and eager to make a meaningful contribution.

As a democratic friend and ally of Taiwan, the United States should be among those speaking up for Taiwan. We should make it clear to the other member states that we believe it is unfair to exclude Taiwan and its 23 million citizens from the world community--and that Taiwan's membership poses no threat to China, or the achievement of a peaceful and equitable solution to Cross-Strait differences.

Madam Speaker, in the 1980's the United States supported and helped arm the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation of their country, a policy later portrayed in the award-winning Tom Hanks movie, ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' Today we need to show support for dissidents fighting to overthrow the terrorist regime in Tehran. It will come as a surprise to most Americans that we are not doing so.

In that struggle to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, not all of those Afghan freedom-fighters were fighting for democracy. It was a coalition of forces who had one thing in common: they wanted the Soviets out of their country. We supported them, and they won. Not only did the Soviets leave Afghanistan, within four years the Soviet Union imploded.

One of the main groups fighting to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime is the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI)--also called the MEK--and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). Strangely, instead of assisting these dissidents, our Department of State decided to label them terrorists in 1997.

In the decade since, a debate has raged about whether the designation of the MEK as a terrorist group was driven less by the facts than it was a desire on the part of State Department bureaucrats to curry favor with ``moderates'' in the government of then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Either way, it is has become clear that this ``good will gesture'' on the part of the State Department failed to yield any progress with Tehran.

The MEK advocates a secular democratic government for Iran, one that that respects human rights and basic freedoms (including freedom of the press and freedom of religion) and has provided intelligence and assistance about the activities of the Iranian regime in Iraq, and Tehran's covert nuclear program. Moreover, a number of the group's members are under the protection of Coalition troops in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the group was recently the victim of a missile attack at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This is a testament to how much Tehran fears the group.

I hope the Iranian regime will refrain from future attacks of this nature, as Ashraf's residents are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Their well being is and continues to be the obligation of the Coalition troops in Iraq, and the Iraqi government.

This raises another interesting point. Not only does the MEK not behave like a terrorist group, in many respects the U.S. government does not treat them like one.

The MEK is a group that the United States and the west should cultivate as we seek an organic, democratic change agent in Iran.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom has already come to this conclusion in removing the MEK from the British terrorist list earlier this year.

Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were willing to enter into an alliance with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to defeat Hitler. We used every ally and every resource to defeat the Axis Powers. Yet today, in dealing with the terrorist regime of Iran, a regime that daily threatens to destroy Israel and the U.S. (the ``Great Satan'') and is actively seeking the means of fulfilling that threat, we cannot find it in our interest to render aid to the People's Mujahideen of Iran because of its checkered past.

It is time for the western world to re-examine our treatment of the MEK in the wake of the UK court decision.

For starters, the political goals behind designating the MEK as a terrorist organization here in the U.S. have failed to materialize. If anything, the Iranian government has become more aggressive and repressive in the years since the MEK designation. Iran is supporting violence and terrorism from Baghdad to Beirut, has defied U.N. demands to end its nuclear enrichment program, and shows no signs of moderating its behavior--test firing missiles yesterday in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

What better way to send a message to Tehran than to free the MEK from the international stigma that comes with the `terrorist' label.

This year's U.S. State Department Country Reports on Terrorism rightly brands the Iranian government as the number one state sponsor of global terrorism. Iran has also been the principal supplier of IEDs to terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Despite continued efforts at diplomacy, financial sanctions, and--in the case of placing the MEK on various terrorist lists--outright appeasement by many western countries, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that his country will never yield its ``dignity'' by suspending its uranium enrichment program.

U.S., EU and UN negotiators have been talking with Tehran about its nuclear program for many years, but Tehran has shown no sign of changing course. And why should they when we keep handcuffs on Iranian dissidents who might cause the Iranian regime real problems?

If western efforts at ``dialogue'' and ``diplomacy'' are to be successful, they must be more than opportunities for Iran to stall for time while moving forward with their nuclear program. A willingness to negotiate with carrots doesn't work unless one is willing to use a few sticks as well.

Today, there no longer remain any legal or political justifications for maintaining the MEK on the terror list. I therefore urge our government to seriously reconsider its stance on the democratic opposition of Iran and remove the group from our list of terrorist organizations.

It's time to take the handcuffs off of the MEK.

Madam Speaker, the other day, I went to fill up my car with gasoline, and the price tag was a little over $75. I gulped because, of course, it's always a shock, and it has been for the last several months every time I've filled up my car, and I know it has been for most persons.

Most Americans, I'm sure, do not consider this to be just the price of doing business and having to go to work. ``Okay. No problem. I'll just do this and not complain.'' But, you know, I thought about it, and there are so many people to thank for this situation we're in that I'm paying $75 to fill up my car, and it's probably going to get worse by the way. We all recognize that. I was wondering who to thank for this situation, who to thank every single time I go into the gas station. Who is really responsible? Of course, I think, for every single American, every time they go in to get their gas and every time they look at that pump and have it say something startling back at them like $75 or more, of course, thank your local environmentalist first. Start off there because, of course, it has been years since we've had the kind of control that they've exercised over especially the Democratic Party. As a result of that control that they exercise and the power that they bring to bear, we have been unable to drill for oil in the United States, off of our coasts or in ANWR.

So thank them first of all.

Then, of course, you could also thank your Democrat Congressman or Senator, if you have one, because, for years now, they've been able to avoid either allowing us to drill for oil in the places where we have oil in this country or, in fact, in the last few months, they've been able to even block any sort of vote on it whatsoever for fear, of course, that they would have to explain such a vote to their constituents.

So there are people who we can thank for $75 when you go and fill up your car at the gas station. I just hope every single time this happens to every single American and that, every time they go in and put the credit card in the reader and see that money deducted, they remember who to thank.

Also, they should remember this: That it's not just this economic issue. It's not just what it's going to take out of their pocketbooks-- mine included--that is causing great pain and consternation. It's also the fact that this is a national security issue. It's not just an economic issue. People are going to have to recognize that we are in a situation, in an international situation, where we are funding our own opponents. The people who want to do us harm are being funded to the tune of billions of dollars a day, every single day, in order to accomplish their goal to eradicate the United States of America from the face of the Earth.

Ten years ago, Osama bin Laden said a strange thing. Well, he says many strange things, but this was a particularly odd statement. He said that he wanted to see $144-a-barrel oil. Now, this was 10 years ago. Of course, oil was nowhere near this price, and everybody looked at that statement and thought it was peculiar to say the least, but he said that's what he believed it would have to be in order for the West to pay the price that he believed was deserving by all the Muslims in the world who have had their oil stolen from them over the years.

The point is he used oil. He talked about oil as being a tactical part of the war against the West.

Well, who would have thought we'd be right at that $140-a-barrel mark within the 10-year period of time that he projected? Who would have thought that that was possible?

It also is an indication, as I say, of the fact that we are facing a much bigger problem than just the economic burden. It is imperative that we strip oil of its strategic value. Not only are billions of dollars flowing outside of the United States into countries that are enemies of the United States', but in fact, those dollars do come back to the United States often in terms of investments that are made by countries through things we call sovereign wealth funds. These are funds that are

controlled by governments. There is $3 trillion, we believe, that is controlled by sovereign wealth funds that are primarily in the Middle East or in countries, again, that are opponents of the United States'. $3 trillion.

With that money, a lot of things can happen. You could probably even affect, to a certain extent, the futures markets, but you could also, certainly, buy up a lot of stock in a lot of companies. Well, to a certain extent, that's good. That's healthy. I'm not going to argue with the fact that we're getting investment back out of some of those dollars, but some of those dollars go into companies that have very important information available to them that are part of the technological base we have in the United States that we rely upon to keep us one step ahead of the game. Although we try our best to make sure that significant technological advances in strategic areas are not available to countries outside the United States, when you own a lot of stock in those companies, believe me, you have access to a lot of information, and they are making use of it.

So there are ramifications to this outflow of dollars in the pursuit of oil, and there are a lot of things we have to do. Yes, build wind towers. Absolutely. Any kind of alternative fuel you want to talk about and pursue is find with me, but when it comes down to it, we have to drill. All of those other things will not solve our problem and certainly not in the time frame that will allow us to breathe easier with the thought that the enemies of the United States' are not actually being enriched by our own need for their oil. We have it. It's abundant. There are trillions of barrels of oil just in the Colorado- Wyoming plateau that are locked up in shale now, but there is technology available that will allow us to extract it.

There are all kinds of things that we can do if only the government will get out of the way and allow it to be done. That is what is required. Let's do it as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Taiwan's Ambassador to the United States, Jausieh ``Joseph'' Wu.

Prior to entering politics, Ambassador Wu was an academic, completing his Ph.D. in political science in 1989 at Ohio State University. After serving as a teacher in the political science department at Ohio State, he became deputy director of the Institute of International Relations at Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

When the landmark election of President Chen Shui-Bian in 2000 officially put an end to one-party authoritarian rule in Taiwan, Ambassador Wu left academia to serve his country in government.

He was appointed Deputy Secretary General of the Presidential Office, and in 2004 he was tapped by President Chen to head the Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan, the government body in charge of coordinating bilateral state-to-state relations with the People's Republic of China. Wu performed admirably in this position despite unprecedented threats and belligerence from China designed to undermine President Chen's efforts in Taiwan to expand and deepen its young democracy. Much to the dismay of the Chinese, however, the people of Taiwan resisted this pressure--successfully amending their National Constitution and holding the nation's first democratic referendum.

In 2007, Ambassador Wu was appointed to his current position as Taiwan's Ambassador in Washington, a position nearly as important as the post of Foreign Minister. His invaluable experience as Mainland Affairs Council chief gave him a keen understanding of the Chinese military threat to Taiwan and U.S. interests in the region and around the world--knowledge that made him an ideal choice for this important post. His appointment as Ambassador was also an historic event for Taiwan, as Ambassador Wu became the first non-Kuomintang Ambassador from Taiwan to the United States.

During his time as Ambassador to the United States, Wu served with the same professionalism and diligence as he did in his prior positions. Ambassador Wu and his staff have worked tirelessly to improve Taiwan's traditionally solid relationship with Congress and helped to strengthen the bilateral U.S.-Taiwan relationship--a relationship based on our shared values and our commitment to democracy.

Ambassador Wu has always gone to great lengths to improve mutual understanding and open lines of communication between the United States and Taiwan. During his tenure, the U.S. House of Representatives reciprocated that goodwill by moving to scrap antiquated and arbitrary, 1970's-era State Department restrictions on communications between high-ranking U.S. and Taiwanese officials.

I sincerely hope that the Senate will follow suit so that in the not- too-distant future, the President of the United States can meet with the democratically elected President of Taiwan the same way he meets with the unelected dictator of the People's Republic of China.

Madam Speaker, Ambassador Wu is an exceptional diplomat and a dedicated statesman. He is also my friend. I deeply appreciate his efforts to bring our two countries closer together, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an outstanding teacher from my district, Ms. Cheryl Mosier of Columbine High School in Littleton. Ms. Mosier has been awarded the 2007 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, an award given by the National Science Foundation to remarkable educators committed to enhancing the learning of their students.

Established by Congress in 1983, the Presidential award program recognizes extraordinary mathematics and science teachers in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories, and the U.S. Department of Defense Schools. This year Ms. Mosier was the Colorado recipient for this prestigious award.

An Earth Science teacher at Columbine High School, Ms. Mosier has over 15 years teaching experience. A Colorado native, Cheryl graduated from the University of Northern Colorado, and went on to complete a master's degree in teaching from Grand Canyon University.

Cheryl inspires her students in the Earth Sciences by teaching them lessons they can relate to everyday life. Cheryl won the PAEMST award for a lesson she taught on Spectroscopy. This was the same lesson Cheryl was teaching on April 20, 1999 when tragedy struck Columbine High School after two gunmen opened fire inside the school, killing 12 students, and one teacher.

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to Cheryl, and wish her the best in all her future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman.

Earlier someone indicated that we had thousands of supporters, thousands

of groups supporting this bill. Who couldn't get thousands of groups to support a bill by paying them $300 billion in subsidies?

We are poised here to pass a record-breaking, multibillion-dollar, Soviet-style central planning farm bill that takes tax dollars away from the general public and doles them out to a few people in the agricultural industry, some of them millionaires, at a time when crop prices are breaking records.

What benefit do the American taxpayers get from this bill? They get higher taxes for the privilege of paying artificially higher food prices. What a deal.

Mr. Speaker, when oil prices hit record highs, the Democrat leadership and some Republicans called for the imposition of a windfall profits tax on greedy evil oil producers. But when crop prices skyrocket, the same leadership comes to the floor of this House to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies to big agricultural businesses and wealthy hobby farmers.

America, what a country. Washington, what a disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State recently issued a travel warning alerting American citizens about the deteriorating

security situation in Mexico. Violence has become so widespread and rampant that even the State Department is having difficulty papering over the problems with diplomatic language.

According to the travel warning, which was issued last month, a war between criminal organizations struggling for control of the lucrative narcotics trade continues along the U.S.-Mexico border. That's right, a war, and it's in our back yard. And the blood bath isn't only claiming Mexican casualties. According to the State Department, Americans have been among the victims of homicides and kidnappings in the border region. Dozens of U.S. citizens were kidnapped and/or murdered in Tijuana in 2007. There have been public shootouts during daylight hours near shopping areas.

And this conflict between drug cartels is not just a neighborhood turf war fought between dime store thugs with switchblades. According to the travel warning, the conflict between the Mexican Government and ``heavily armed narcotics cartels has escalated to levels equivalent to military small-unit combat and have included use of machine guns and fragmentation grenades. Criminals are armed with a wide array of sophisticated weapons. In some cases, assailants have worn military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles.''

And endemic corruption in Mexico's government is tipping the scales in favor of the cartels. Police and soldiers desert their posts to give traffickers inside knowledge about tactics and surveillance. And because of their history of corruption and abuse, the police and army are often less popular than the drug cartels who hand out cell phones and employ taxi drivers and youth as lookouts.

Several high-ranking police officials have been gunned down in Mexico this month. This includes Mexico's Acting Federal Police Chief, Edgar Millan Gomez, who was killed by the Sinaloa cartel. In another case, a Mexico City district police chief was the target of a bomb that exploded near the police headquarters. Saul Pena, who was to be named one of the five police chiefs in Ciudad Juarez on the border with Texas, was shot dead earlier this month, making him the 20th police official to be killed in Juarez this year.

Just yesterday, a new Juarez police chief quit his post after receiving death threats. And more than 100 of the city's 1,700-member police force have quit their jobs since January. Several Mexican police commanders have crossed into the United States and are seeking asylum, saying they are unprotected and fear for their lives. And who can blame them?

According to the Associated Press, ``Police who take on the cartels feel isolated and vulnerable when they become targets, as did 22 commanders in Ciudad Juarez when drug traffickers named them on a handwritten death list. It was addressed to those who still don't believe in the power of the cartels. Of the 22, seven have been killed, three wounded in assassination attempts. Of the others, all but one have quit, and city officials said they didn't want to be interviewed.''

The Zetas, an infamous group of soldiers turned drug hit men are perhaps the most notorious of the drug enforcers. In Mexico, they hang banners above bridges offering jobs, good-paying family benefits to soldiers and police who desert their posts and join the narcotraffickers. The message the drug cartels are sending, Mr. Speaker, is clear: ``Join us or die.''

Many Americans might be shocked to learn that many of the Zetas receive their advance training courtesy of the American taxpayer. And the Bush administration is poised to make the problem worse by providing an additional $1.4 billion in assistance for this purpose. With just $1.4 billion in taxpayer aid, the argument goes, we can train Mexican police and military to better fight the armed elements of the drug cartels.

But we've been there before. Our border patrol agents in Texas and California have already seen U.S.-provided Humvees and other equipment being used by drug cartels and by rogue units of the Mexican military assisting the smugglers.

Mr. Speaker, handing out another $1 billion in taxpayer money to a Mexican government so rife with corruption so we can watch the scenario repeat itself makes about as much sense as dropping cash out of helicopters. A better use of the $1.4 billion, Mr. Speaker, would be to secure our own border before any more of this violence spills over to our country and across that dangerous frontier which is separating us from Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1026, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club.

As the resolution states, the club was ``organized in 1908 by 25 women who were influential in Washington's official life and who wanted to establish a nonsectarian and nonpolitical group that would promote friendship and cordiality in public life.''

Congressional spouses are active in the group, which is one of Washington's oldest and most venerable social clubs.

The Congressional Club has hosted the annual First Lady's luncheon for nearly a century, and makes numerous charitable donations in the name of the First Lady each year. The club also plays host to the spouses of foreign ambassadors serving here in the U.S.

For 100 years, the Congressional Club has contributed its time and efforts to numerous charitable causes, improved the cultural atmosphere in Washington, and extended a hand of friendship to the foreign diplomatic corps of countless nations.

The club deserves our recognition today, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, CBS News recently ran an expose on the growing phenomenon of illegal aliens entering the United States in order to give birth to a child. The segment shed some light on what has become an increasingly costly burden to the United States taxpayer.

An estimated 300,000 children of illegal aliens are born in this country every year, largely because of a misguided policy of so-called ``birthright citizenship.'' This peculiar policy confers U.S. citizenship on any child born here regardless of what country their parents are from or whether those parents are here in the United States legally. We are one of few--in fact, we may be the only country now that still provides for this particular kind of citizenship.

And it's based on a very strange sort of interpretation of the 14th amendment, one part of the 14th amendment in particular. We all recognize of course that when the 14th amendment was written there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Certainly, there could have been no reference to it in the amendment itself. And what we need to do, frankly, is to pass legislation in this House and in the Senate, and the President needs to sign it, outlawing this practice and this habit, really, that we have gotten into, which is more than anything else a phenomenon of custom more than it is of actual law or analysis of the legal system or the Constitution of the United States. We should pass legislation to outlaw it and let it be tested at the Supreme Court. It results not just in the benefit for a child who is born as a U.S. citizen, it also makes it easier for the parent of that anchor baby or the illegal alien to become a U.S. citizen through that child.

The story on CBS focused on one woman who had crossed over the Rio Grande with her husband and two other children to give birth in the United States. She gave birth to a healthy 8\1/2\ pound baby on American soil after American doctors performed a C-section, a procedure that carries a price tag of nearly $5,000, a bill that was sent to the American taxpayer.

Joe Riley, the CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center near the Texas-Mexico border, said this sort of thing is quite typical. He told CBS news that he had seen ``mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river in actual labor, dirty, wet, cold, here to have a child in the United States.''

Mr. Riley's hospital alone is forced to provide uncompensated care worth more than $200 million each to cover the cost of nearly the 3,000 illegal alien births that take place there annually. Even more startling, that equates to about 50 percent of all the births in that hospital, meaning doctors are delivering almost as many children for illegal aliens as they are for American mothers. In California alone, by the way, the cost for illegal alien health care, not just for the births of illegal alien children, but the cost of health care for illegal aliens is over $1 billion a year; one State, over $1 billion a year.

With statistics like that, Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that many American hospitals are on the verge of collapse--some, in fact, have gone that way--and that billions of taxpayer dollars are being squandered on illegal aliens that are taking advantage of the health care program.

It's time we yank back the illegal alien welcome mat, eliminate perverse incentives for illegal immigration like birth right citizenship and taxpayer services for illegal aliens.

Madam Speaker, earlier a gentleman who addressed the House talked about the issue of voter fraud, and he was concerned about the fact that there were States that were actually trying to do something about it using voter IDs in order to make sure that the person who is at the polls is, in fact, who they say they are.

Now, we may think that there is no such thing as voter fraud. The fact is that unfortunately there's an enormous amount of voter fraud. I recalled as I was listening to the gentleman speak on this issue, and I cannot remember now the county, but I remember hearing about a county that sent out a notice to all of its citizens with regard to being empaneled as jurors. And of course, one of the questions they asked on this is whether or not you were a citizen, and if you checked that, then you were not eligible to sit on a jury.

Well, they then went and took the information apparently and looked at the voter information rolls, and there were hundreds of people that had identified themselves as not citizens for the purpose of serving on a jury because they didn't want to do that, because they were not citizens and they were willing to say so, and on the other hand, they had registered to vote because they also wanted to do that. That was okay with them.

Of course, this is in just one particular county, and as I say, I can't recall it now, but I just was thinking about that as I heard him because there are all kinds of things that are happening throughout this country and have been happening for a long time that attack the whole concept of citizenship.

We keep taking things away from that idea of what it means to be a citizen, bestowing these same privileges on anyone who happens to be here. Simply a resident, that's all it takes anymore.

There are cities, of course, that call themselves sanctuary cities and allow people who are not even legally present in this country the ability to have all kinds of services, to stay essentially hidden from the authorities because

they have broken the law by entering this country without our permission, but they are given this special sanctuary status, and they were given not only that but a lot of other kinds of benefits.

Recently, just as sort of the, I don't know, one of these I can't believe it's true stories that I hear almost every single day, something happened in Los Angeles that really points out again the fact that we are moving ever more closely to making the term ``citizenship'' meaningless.

Madam Speaker, the L.A. Times ran a story about the illegal immigration epidemic in this country and how much it was putting pressure on our most vulnerable citizens, in this case, those awaiting organ transplants. And they picked out one particular individual, a lady by the name of Ana Puente who was here illegally.

She had already undergone three liver transplants, two in 1989, and a third in 1998, each paid for by taxpayers, in this case, by the taxpayers of California under a program that allows for any individual in California to be eligible for this kind of medical service up until the time that they are 21 years old. And if they are unable to pay for it, the State pays for it.

Well, when Ms. Puente turned 21 last June, she aged out of her taxpayer-funded health insurance in California. So what did she do? She found out something very interesting. She found out that if she was here illegally, which she was, and notified U.S. Immigration and Customs of that fact, then at that point in time she would be eligible for the service, a free service. She would be eligible for the medical service that she wanted. Why? Because illegal aliens in this country are entitled to benefits under the Medi-Cal system. So when she admitted her illegal status in the country, her benefits were restored, and she is now awaiting her fourth transplant at taxpayer expense.

Madam Speaker, what this means is that in California, if you're an illegal alien, you're entitled to taxpayer-funded health care for complex procedures like organ transplants. If you're an American, you may be out of luck. How much money are we talking about? Well, the average cost of a liver transplant and the first year of follow up runs about $500,000; anti-rejection medications alone can run about $30,000 annually. As we all know well, liver donors are also in scarce supply. In California alone, 4,000 people are awaiting livers.

It is amazing. We all know that the health care system is a triage system. Some things are allowed, some things are available. One of the things that should be considered is legal status in this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Edward Moore, better known to his friends as Buck. Buck's untimely death in a motorcycle accident is a tragic loss to his family, community, and indeed the nation.-

Buck was the founder of Riders Against Illegal Aliens, an advocacy group dedicated to immigration reform and preserving American sovereignty. Buck led numerous rallies protesting the influx of illegal immigration, the unjust incarceration of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, and the government's lack of will to enforce immigration laws. He will be missed.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my sincerest condolences to Buck's friends and family. He was a dedicated patriot and will not be forgotten.