Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman leading tonight's discussion on the floor. As we do so, we think about the people back at home and across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting because they are out of work, Americans are hurting because they lost jobs, they find they can't find new jobs. Families are hurting because of this. Families, Mr. Speaker, are also hurting because they are waiting for other fellow family members to be able to join them here in this country through the legal immigration process. They are patiently going through all the processes that we have set up in this country to process it, and they are hurting as they wait for their family members to join them.

As we come here to the floor today as Members of Congress, we understand that this government has to ensure that everyone plays by the rules, including this administration.

As Members of Congress, we are obligated to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what this House has done by defunding the President's unconstitutional actions in which he granted amnesty. Added to that, he provided working permits to over 5 million illegal immigrants, thereby creating additional problems for those Americans who are out of work and creating additional problems for those Americans who are waiting for their fellow family members to come into this country through the legal immigration process.

Mr. Speaker, the House has done its job. We have acted. We have fully funded--this is important--we have fully funded the Department of Homeland Security while at the same time undoing the damage the President's unprecedented executive amnesty is having on our Republic and, more important, on our American families.

The President's actions to grant de facto amnesty has broad-reaching consequences for many of my constituents and constituents all across the United States as well.

It is unfair. It is not only unfair, it is irresponsible to divert resources away from legal applications of those who, as I said before, are patiently waiting and going through the legal process of immigration to give it to those who have broken the law.

It is also reckless to reward those who have blatantly broken the law with work permits, allowing them to compete directly with those Americans and those American families who are hurting because they are out of work today and are finding themselves in a hard position to find work.

So because of this, Mr. Speaker, I call on our Senators who are blocking a vote on the bill: do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work, do not turn your back on those who have immigrated here legally, and do not turn your back on those who are still waiting to try to immigrate into this country legally as well.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the Senate to act. It is time for the Senate to end its obstruction. It is time to move this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, located in West Milford, New Jersey. St. Joseph's parish dates back to 1765, making it one of the oldest and longest lasting parishes in New Jersey.

As we look back on the past 250 years, we recognize that the world has changed drastically. Throughout these changes St. Joseph's church has remained a beacon of faith for their community. The parishioners of St. Joseph's Church come together every week to worship, promote faith, care for the less fortunate, and serve their local community. Their commitment to one another, and to the wider community, is exceptional.

I congratulate St. Joseph's on this impressive anniversary. It is an honor to represent the people of West Milford and to commend St. Joseph's parish for all they do as they seek to make our community a better place.

Mr. Speaker, for approximately the past six years, innocent customers of three failed broker-dealers--the securities firms of Bernie Madoff, Allan Stanford, and McGill, Smith, have been unfairly victimized time and time again despite the existence of remedial legislation enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of protecting such customers.

Initially these customers were victimized by the nefarious fraudsters, whose Ponzi schemes caused the failure of several securities firms and resulted in financial devastation for so many. Next, these customers were victimized by the Securities Investor Protection

Corporation (SIPC) and their henchmen, whose antics, behavior, and positions were the antithesis of investor protection--financial self interest and preservation clearly appeared to be their guiding mantra. Finally, when SIPC sought the Court's blessing for its wrongful conduct and breach of trust, the court's bizarre deference to SIPC and their blatant misapplication of the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) resulted in a perverted process and erroneous interpretations of SIPA, which, further victimized these customers by depriving them of the financial protections and benefits mandated by SIPA and exposed them to draconian claw-back lawsuits seeking to strip them of what few remaining assets they might still possess.

Examples abound supporting these conclusions. If someone walked into a securities firm and purchased a stock or a bond, who would believe that such a person would not be considered a ``customer'' and would be denied basic Congressionally created customer protections? Why would a customer of a failed securities house, one who had no knowledge of a Ponzi scheme operated by the broker-dealer, be subjected to costly litigation to defend the returns their account statements told them they had earned from their investments? Why would a customer of a broker-dealer receive a monthly ``account statement'', purporting to evidence their financial position at the firm, and later the parties charged with protecting the rights of those customers be allowed to disregard those statements and eliminate all stated returns in the account? And who could have ever anticipated that this same entity would elect to adopt a ``valuation'' methodology patently designed to provide the lowest values to the customers in order to maximize its own bank accounts and resources? While these results seem fanciful and far fetched, they are the realities that innocent customers of these three broker dealers have had to endure.

While the courts are charged with the responsibility of interpreting statutes, that function properly involves determining Congressional intent. If, as here, the Courts have misinterpreted that intent, it is then the role of Congress to reaffirm what it actually meant and to clarify how Congress meant to achieve the desired results. Thus the Garrett-Maloney bill is not an attempt to rewrite SIPA retroactively. Rather it is intended to reaffirm what Congress meant all along--the protection of innocent customers who have been defrauded by a dishonest broker-dealer.

When Congress reconvenes in January, we will expeditiously address these important issues--victims have been victimized for too long. Victims will receive what they are due. Victims who had no actual knowledge of the frauds will be extricated from the harassing ``claw back'' lawsuits. Much progress was made on these issues during the past two years--numerous hearings were held and support for the Garrett- Maloney bill is now robust and bipartisan. Addressing these issues, and providing appropriate remedies for the victims, will be a top priority in January, indeed an urgent one.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 535 I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 536 I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4569) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to make certain improvements to form 10-K and regulation S-K, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 4569, as amended, that is currently under consideration

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise now in support of H.R. 4569, which is the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014. Having access to the U.S. capital markets and the broad investor base that comes with it is vital--literally vital--for U.S. companies to be able to grow their businesses and create jobs in this country.

Over time, as our securities laws have continued to grow and evolve, the number of new SEC rules and regulations that have been weighing down on public companies continue now to multiply, and it is becoming more and more difficult and costly for small businesses to succeed and eventually go public.

Many of the disclosure rules that have been added over time are both duplicative and are no longer needed due to many technological advancements that we are all familiar with. And yet the SEC has taken little action to review these unnecessary and outdated regulations and to make appropriate changes to help U.S. companies and also investors.

So we have H.R. 4569 before us, and it seeks to do what? It removes some of the outdated and unnecessary red tape and allows for the small companies and investors to benefit from a more streamlined and efficient public disclosure regime.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the SEC to simplify the public company disclosure regime for issuers and investors by permitting the issuers to submit a summary page of annual reports on Form 10-Ks with cross references to the contents of the report. It is that simple.

Because the typical 10-K filed by issuers is hundreds of pages long and

written in legalese, investors do find it difficult to locate and to digest the truly important information about the company in the report. So permitting issuers to submit a summary page would enable companies to concisely disclose pertinent information to investors without exposing them to liability.

This summary page would also enable investors to more easily access the most relevant information about that company.

This legislation would also direct the SEC to revise Regulation S-K-- ``Reg S-K,'' it is called--to better scale disclosure rules for emerging growth companies and smaller issuers, and to eliminate other duplicative, outdated, or unnecessary Reg S-K disclosure rules for all issuers.

In testimony before the Capital Markets Subcommittee, one witness stated: ``The burdens imposed by existing regulation, primarily Reg S-K and Reg S-X, effectively deny small companies access to the public market and make investors less willing to invest.''

He added: ``This bill, H.R. 4569, is very constructive, and the Commission is likely to be receptive to it. It might well launch a process that would substantially reduce unneeded impediments to smaller firms being able to access the public capital markets.''

Additionally, another commenter testified:

Over the course of time, proxies have become voluminous,

some required disclosures have becomes obsolete, and the

delivery of information has changed, though the legal

mandated forms of disclosure have not.

This situation has commonly been referred to as

``disclosure overload'' and it is apparent that investors are

not being given information in a decision-useful manner and,

in some cases, they are simply overwhelmed with non-relevant

information.

Even SEC Chair Mary Jo White has, on several occasions,

stated that a review of our current disclosure system is a

top priority for the Commission this year. So this bill would

help augment the SEC's effort by requiring the Commission to,

first, eliminate wholly unnecessary or outdated disclosure

requirements and to allow issuers to include a summary of

material in the form 10-K.

So this legislation builds on section 108 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups bill--you remember that, the JOBS Act--which directed the SEC to study Reg S-K in order to simplify and modernize disclosure rules. The SEC completed the study in December of 2013. Unfortunately, the study proposed few substantive reform measures. Instead, it recommended further study of Reg S-K disclosure rules.

Let me conclude with this. Given our continued economic difficulties, I believe we need to stop studying and start taking action. Simplifying and streamlining disclosure requirements will enable companies to divert fewer resources to compliance, freeing up additional capital to create American jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for her assistance in this matter.

Also, you made reference to Mrs. Maloney from New York for her work as well. She is not on the floor right now, but I certainly do appreciate her efforts with the legislation and in full committee and in subcommittee as well in order to move forward on this piece of legislation before the House, H.R. 4569.

And to your comment about perhaps I should have taken the substance of the bill to heart, I did streamline the 10 pages down to four pages to make it not duplicative, unnecessary, and outdated information.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I appreciate the gentleman's coming to the floor. More importantly, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts and hard work on this legislation in committee. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520 I was attending a funeral and was unable

to be in Washington, DC for votes on 11/17/2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Joan D'Alessandro and to recognize her mother, Rosemarie, for her tireless dedication to victims' rights and child safety.

In 1973, Joan D'Alessandro was sexually molested and murdered by her neighbor, Joseph McGowan, after she simply went to his house to deliver Girl Scout cookies. Joan's body was found 3 days later, on Easter Sunday, in New York States' Harriman State Park. Joseph McGowan was later convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Joan was 7 years old when she was murdered. This month, she would have celebrated her 49th birthday. In the four decades since her death, her mother, Rosemarie, has used the tragedy of her daughter's death as a motivation to ensure the protection of other children.

She has mounted several successful campaigns to keep her daughter's killer behind bars, and she has worked tirelessly to strengthen laws against child predators.

In the 1990s, Rosemarie launched a grassroots movement to pass what is called Joan's Law. This legislation imposes a life without parole sentence on anyone convicted of molesting and murdering a child under 14. Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the bill into law in 1997. President Clinton signed a Federal version of this law in 1998.

Even with these successes, Rosemarie continues to do even more. Earlier this year, she unveiled a butterfly sculpture and garden in Hillsdale, New Jersey. This sculpture is a tribute to Joan's life. It also serves as a reminder to each and every one of us to be diligent about keeping our own children safe.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in coming together to remember Joan's birthday; moreover, I ask you to join me in thanking Rosemarie for all she has done to protect countless other children.

We will never fully understand the grief that she has suffered all these years, but we hope that she finds comfort in knowing that we are inspired by her determination to make the world a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to welcome all those who have traveled to Washington, D.C., this week for the In Defense of Christians Inaugural Summit.

This summit unites human rights groups and religious leaders concerned about the plight of ancient Christian minorities of the Middle East. Many of these ancient churches have survived

centuries of hardship, foreign invasion, and domestic despotism.

As we have seen recently in Iraq and Syria, millions are now caught up in the middle of sectarian violence and conflict and end up paying the ultimate price for it.

The bedrock of our Nation's establishment was freedom of religion. But what many experience today, even here in the United States, is the subjugation of religious beliefs by a government or military decree. A people cannot be free without religious liberty.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, I welcome all those who are here for the summit, and I commend them for their enduring fight for religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Waldwick, New Jersey, Police Officer Christopher Goodell. Officer Goodell was killed in the line of duty on July 17, 2014, when a truck hit his police cruiser. He was just 32 years old.

Although Officer Goodell's life was tragically cut short, he lived a life of purpose, serving both his community and his country as well.

Officer Goodell was raised up in Waldwick and graduated from Waldwick High School, just back in the year 2000. Shortly after September 11, Officer Goodell enlisted in the U.S. Marines. Officer Goodell served in the military for 5 years, even including a tour of duty over in Iraq.

After his military service, Officer Goodell returned back to his hometown of Waldwick, New Jersey, and joined the Waldwick Police Department. He took a special interest, if you will, in discouraging teens from drinking and driving.

He spoke about the dangers of drunk driving back at Waldwick High School, and he also ran an annual DWI prevention course.

It was on June 11 of this year that Officer Goodell was recognized in the State by the State chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, doing this for all of his good service.

Thinking about it, Officer Goodell truly had a bright future ahead of him. Just last month, he had proposed to his girlfriend, and they had plans to get married in 2016, but now, he is survived by his fiancee, a loving family, and an endless number of friends.

Officer Goodell was truly a hometown hero. He lived a life of purpose, and he died serving and protecting the community where he grew up. So I come here today and I ask my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me today in paying tribute to Officer Goodell.

We recognize, as we do this, that words alone may be of little comfort to the family and the friends of Christopher Goodell. It is my hope that they may find some solace, knowing that our thoughts and our prayers will be with them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in an attempt to prevent government regulators from expanding the corrupt doctrine of ``too big to fail'' into even greater parts of our economy. You see, under Dodd- Frank, FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, has the power to designate companies as SIFIs, systemically important financial institutions.

I have heard people say that SIFI status does not mean too big to fail, but that is a ridiculous claim--on par with the reassurances we used to get that there was no implicit guarantee with Fannie and Freddie, the GSEs.

In the real world, everyone knows that the Federal Government will never allow a SIFI to fail. It is basically the government's stamp of approval, if you will, that says that we really care about this company. And every time FSOC designates a SIFI, it exposes all of us, the American taxpayers, to literally billions and billions of dollars in potential losses.

You see, first FSOC designates the megabanks as being too-big-to-fail SIFIs. Now they are claiming that nonbank firms such as insurance companies and asset managers also should be designated as SIFIs, as well. I really don't think that FSOC will be satisfied until every company in this country is a SIFI. So, obviously, this has got to stop.

That is why I am offering an amendment to prevent the Secretary of the Treasury and the chair of the Securities Exchange Commission, both voting members of FSOC, from designating any additional nonbank companies as SIFIs. You see, SIFI status puts nonbank companies under Federal Reserve regulation. And then the Fed, which only understands banks, imposes its bank-type capital standards on them, and it doesn't really seem to care if that makes no sense at all for these companies. I guess basically if all you have is a hammer, then everything else out there looks like a nail.

And so when companies become SIFIs, they cease to be part of the free market. Instead, they become something else. They become protected entities that are spared the costs and consequences that normal companies face. And, so, over time, the combination of this protected status and the Fed's risk-averse regulation will sap the energy and also the competitiveness from these companies.

Do you know what? Creative thinking and management will be seen as too radical, and innovative business structures will be stamped out as too risky. Meeting some G-13's definition of ``safety'' will take the place of building shareholder value. Instead, lobbying and political donations will become the biggest, highest, and best use of capital for these companies. And government will corrupt the private sector and, in turn, it will corrupt government.

You only have to look at the corporate culture over at Fannie Mae to see what sheltering a company from market discipline does to it. What do I mean by that? If you like the GSEs, then you are going to love SIFIs. And so we should not allow too big to fail to take root in the nonbank financial sector. These companies are too important as a counterbalance to the megabanks for us to ruin them with crony capitalism.

You see, Dodd-Frank was based on a faulty premise, and this is it: that the financial crisis was caused exclusively by the greed of large financial institutions and that intrusive government regulation could have prevented all this and prevented the crisis by keeping them from making all these risky investments.

So with these ideological blinders on, it is no surprise that we ended up today with FSOC and SIFIs. Instead of solving the problem of too big to fail, Dodd-Frank basically codified it.

FSOC is not working out as intended. And with every reckless designation of a nonbank company as a SIFI, FSOC steps in and makes our economy more dangerous and makes it more unstable. As they say, if you find yourself in a hole, you should do what? Stop digging.

So I respectfully request that you support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, obviously the markets have already disagreed with the gentleman by the pricing of their shares.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the chairman.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of our transportation system in this country.

Back at home in Sussex, Bergen, and Warren Counties in the Fifth District of New Jersey, they are only asking the same thing that people across America are, and that is to have a safe and efficient transportation system of roads and bridges.

The highway trust fund is bankrupt. Our past highway bills have been filled with excessive Federal regulation and pork-laden projects, meaning that the maintenance of our roads and bridges has not been getting done. So we are here today because we don't have the money now to fix them.

Going forward, we have two clear choices. Either we can continue down the same path, the current path, passing a bill to bail out the trust fund to the tune of some $50 billion, or we can find a better way.

Personally, I get tired every year going and speaking to the Secretary of Transportation--it doesn't matter which party--and asking him: Can you tell me what exactly the needs are on Route 17 in Bergen County or Route 519 in Sussex or Warren County? I ask that question, and again and again they will say: Where's Route 17? Where's Route 517? Where's Route 519?

We are here saying we cannot continue to allow Washington, who doesn't know our needs and doesn't know our roads, to tell us how to run things. The solution to our current quagmire is to return the power back to the people who know better, back to the States. States, counties, and local officials are the ones that use these roads. They are in the best position to decide how to use these transportation dollars.

There is not one single Federal official here in Washington, elected or otherwise, who knows the needs of my community or your community with specific detail as well as the people who actually live there, who actually drive on those roads, and who actually have to maintain those roads.

So it is about time, after all these years, that we re-empower the States, re-empower the counties, re-empower the local officials, the people who live and use these roads, to make the transportation decisions, instead of people here in Washington who have no clue what the needs are, who have no idea what the problems are, who have no idea as to actually provide, what I said at the very beginning, what the people in my counties of the Fifth District want as a safe and efficient transportation system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.

This amendment seeks to address duplicative and overburdensome regulatory and registration requirements being faced by pensioners, savers, retirees, endowments, municipalities, and many other investors.

Registered investment companies, RICs, play a critical role in the U.S. financial savings and retirement landscape. Millions of retirees, pensioners, and other savers across the country seek access to RICs to invest their hard-earned money and savings to invest for retirement, college tuition, or a first home.

Currently, all RICs are registered with and are primarily regulated by the SEC and have to comply with an extensive set of rules and requirements, including the oversight of their derivatives holdings.

Back in 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, acting on its own initiative and without any direction from Congress, significantly narrowed a longstanding exclusion from the commodity pool operator, CPO, registration for ``otherwise regulated entities,'' but only for RICs, which are comprehensively regulated by SEC and typically do not resemble traditional commodity pools.

Because all RICs are currently registered with and are regulated by the SEC, the CFTC's rules change needlessly forces fund companies that manage literally thousands of funds, representing literally millions of U.S. pensioners, savers, and retirees to do what? To pay for costly and duplicative registration requirements.

You see, even without registration, the CFTC still has enforcement authority over all commodity contracts. This amendment would not, in any way, change the extent to which all commodity transactions are subject to the transaction level requirements of regulation, such as reporting, such as clearing, such as trading, and even margin. This amendment simply eliminates the duplicative regulatory and registration costs faced by these funds.

Also, by more appropriately tailoring the CFTC's regulatory reach, this amendment has the added benefit of ensuring that the CFTC has actually even more funds and resources available to do what? To implement Dodd-Frank and enforce the new swaps regulatory regime.

This will help the agency prioritize, even better, their current workload and even reduce the need for a significant increase in the agency's budget during these challenging fiscal times.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when millions of American households are approaching retirement and their investment returns are significantly reduced because of the Federal Reserve's low interest rate policies, it is very important that government public policy

minimize the regulatory costs of investment for our retirees, for our pensioners, and for our savers.

We must strike the right balance between ensuring investors have the ability to earn adequate returns on their investments with the appropriate regulatory oversight of our financial markets.

Please help restore this balance and protect investors by voting ``yes'' for the Garrett amendment to H.R. 4413.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Your last sentence was that you do not wish to rely on just one entity--presumably the SEC--in the enforcement of these contracts and so on and so forth.

Right, but we do nothing in this amendment to take away from the CFTC their enforcement authority. They retain that.

All that has changed is the registration requirement. The CFTC and the SEC retain both their mutual and harmonious, if you will, enforcement authorities under all of the contracts that are respective to these provisions. That is not taken away.

We just say: Why duplicate the effort as far as registration requirements? I just wanted to clarify that point.

No.

Actually, yes, they would.

Great. I would like to hear from our chairman.

Before that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his support for this legislation and for the amendment.

I yield now the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee, and congratulate him for his great work on the underlying legislation before us today.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of one of New Jersey's sons, Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine of Waldwick, New Jersey.

Staff Sergeant D'Augustine was killed more than 2 years ago on March 27, 2012, while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. In the greatest act of sacrifice possible, Staff Sergeant D'Augustine gave his life while protecting his fellow men and women in uniform. He was just 29 years old. Today, this House will honor Staff Sergeant D'Augustine's ultimate sacrifice by passing H.R. 1458.

This legislation will designate the United States Postal Service located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building. While no action by this Congress could ever repay his sacrifice, this bill will create a permanent and visible memory of his heroism.

It was just 1 day after graduating from Waldwick High School back in 2001 that Staff Sergeant D'Augustine enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was assigned to the 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Staff Sergeant D'Augustine had served two tours of duty in Iraq, and as was stated, he was just 2 weeks away from completing his second tour of duty in Afghanistan.

While there, he worked as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal tech, and he was going ahead of his fellow marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen and was clearing the way for them. We will never know how many lives Staff Sergeant D'Augustine saved, but his numerous awards, including the Bronze Star with valor, the Purple Heart, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korea Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, and the NATO-ISAF Medal, all speak of his selfless heroism.

Even after his passing, Staff Sergeant D'Augustine's legacy continues to this day in his community.

The Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Memorial Fund offers a scholarship to one male graduating senior and one female graduating senior who exemplify the highest standards of citizenship through strong character and dedication to community service. Since October 2012, the fund has donated more than $48,000 to numerous charities as well as making direct donations to veterans in need. The tremendous outpouring of love and support for his family since his death has provided a glimpse into the number of lives he has touched and also into the number of lives his legacy continues to touch.

To those who knew him best--his parents, Anthony and Patricia; his three sisters, Nicole, Jennifer, and Michele; and his brother-in-law, Len--he will always be remembered as a loving son and a loving brother.

To his fellow marines, he will be remembered as a faithful brother in arms.

To this Nation, he will be remembered as a patriot who loved his country, who loved the Marine Corps, and who gave his life in defense of freedom.

The Marine Corps motto is ``Semper Fidelis''--``always faithful.'' Staff Sergeant D'Augustine lived this motto, and his legacy embodies it. He was faithful to his country, and he was faithful to his mission. He was faithful to the Corps, and he was faithful to his fellow marines.

In times such as this, words fail to provide adequate comfort to his family and friends, and it is my sincere hope that they know that the prayers and gratitude of this Nation are always with them.