Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it was about midnight when gunfire erupted in a remote area of Rio Rico, Arizona, a city near the border of Mexico and the United States. Border Patrol agents and unknown gunmen exchanged shots in the dark, and one shot proved to be deadly, claiming a life in this war zone--our southern border, the third front.

Radio chatter alerted dispatch of the incident, and a call for assistance was received this Tuesday night about 11 p.m. Border Patrol agents were making rounds in a very isolated and rugged area just north of the border town of Nogales.

They were trying to catch bandits, the kind that target illegal immigrants. They rob and steal and pillage those immigrants, and our Border Patrol agents protect those immigrants. Banditos have long traveled border districts, robbing these individuals.

But while on patrol Tuesday night, United States Border Agent Brian Terry, and this is his photograph, Madam Speaker. Brian Terry and team members encountered a group of armed gunmen. Upon seeing Agent Terry and three other Border Patrol agents, they opened fire on Agent Terry and his comrades with automatic weapons. Border Patrol Agent Terry was shot in the back with an AK-47. He died en route to a hospital.

Four suspects have been arrested for this dastardly crime. One individual is still at large and on the run. Justice is deserved and needed for these murderers. Border Patrol Agent Terry is irreplaceable--yet another American life claimed by the violent border battle on the third front.

Agent Terry was 40. He was a brother and a son. His family called him a tough, big guy who committed his life to public service. Terry was headed home today to Michigan to see his family for Christmas. He had purchased his plane ticket earlier this week.

He was an agent for 3 years, but he had a military background. Right out of high school, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and he served 3 years. Part of that time he was in the combat zone in Iraq. He later became a police officer and he joined the Border Patrol in 2007. His life was dedicated to public service and the protection of the American people. He had been a member of the elite Border Patrol Tactical Team; and according to his family, he loved that job. He would call home before going on a mission, and he would call when he got back in. The excitement of protecting this Nation fueled his passion in the workplace, and he put his life on the line to protect our security and sovereignty as a Nation. And he paid for it by giving his life.

Madam Speaker, going back to the year 2004, I have a chart that shows assaults that have occurred on our Border Patrol agents. In 2004, about 400 assaults occurred. All of the way to 2009 and even this year, there are over a thousand assaults committed against our Border Patrol agents by illegals arrogantly coming into the United States. Mainly those assaults are by rocks being thrown at those Border Patrol agents and causing injuries. You don't hear too much about the assaults against our border protectors. But the media sure tells us a lot about how important it is that we let people who are here in this country illegally stick around and make the rest of us pay for it.

Agent Terry's fatal shooting is not the first murder of a Border Patrol agent. Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas of Campo, California, was assassinated in 2009 while responding to criminal activity in a notorious alien and drug smuggling area. The men and women on the border are under constant assault. They are the iron gatekeepers to a violent battle that reveals each day and every night uncontained authority.

Because you see, Madam Speaker, whether we want to admit it or not, there are portions of the Texas-Mexico border, the U.S.-Mexico border, that are under the operational control of the drug cartels. The United States does not have control; Mexico does not have control. Not in all areas, but some areas; and that is where this ruthless

third front is taking place. The border war is a bloody battlefield between the law and the outlaws. Once a Texas Ranger told me: Congressman Poe, after dark it gets western on the border. He said we are out-manned, out-gunned, and out-financed by the enemy.

Madam Speaker, we need the moral resolve as a Nation to secure the dignity of our borders and to protect the people who are protecting us, our Border Patrol agents. They are doing the job that we asked them to do, so it is long overdue that we protect the border of this country like we protect the borders of other nations so that no more Border Patrol agents will be murdered by those who sneak into our country.

And that's just the way it is.

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

It is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too time-consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 628 addresses these concerns by authorizing a pilot program in certain United States district courts to promote patent expertise among participating judges.

The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that fewer than 1 percent of all the cases in United States district courts, on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically has a patent case proceed through trial once every 7 years. Nevertheless, these cases account for 10 percent of complex cases, and they require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial resources.

Notwithstanding the investment of additional time and resources, the rate of reversal on claim construction issues--the correct interpretation of which is central to the proper resolution of these cases--is unacceptably high. The premise underlying H.R. 628 is, succinctly stated, practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges who focus more attention on patent cases will be expected to be better prepared to make decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny.

The bill that we have before us today is the product of extensive oversight hearing that focused on proposals to improve patent litigation, which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property in October of 2005. This litigation is similar to H.R. 34 from the 110th

Congress and H.R. 5418, a bill that passed the House unanimously during the 109th Congress. More recently, the House passed H.R. 628 on March 17, 2009. The other body passed the legislation with amendments on December 13. The new changes improve the measure by eliminating a $10 million authorization and by expanding the bill's application to smaller judicial districts.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 628 requires the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select at least six district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that begins no later than 6 months after the date of enactment. The bill specifies criteria the director must employ in determining eligible district courts. It also contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and to prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum-shopping litigants and lawyers.

The litigation additionally requires the director in consultation with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of each participating district to provide the committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress reports. These reports will enable the Congress and the courts to evaluate whether the pilot program is working and, if so, whether it should be made permanent.

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not substantially amend the patent laws or the judicial process, nor does it serve as a substitute for comprehensive patent reform that is needed. Rather, H.R. 628 constructs a foundation that future Congresses and the courts may use to assess the merits of future related proposals.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the superb job that the bill's sponsors, Representatives Issa and Schiff, did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous experts as they developed this bipartisan important legislation. Their success and cooperation have resulted in a good bill that deserves the support of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is a sponsor of this bill.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, patent law is complicated. It is difficult. It is messy. Now, that's why law schools have a special track for those that want to be patent lawyers. They get their own certification, in many law schools, because it is so complicated. And then when those cases go to court, they need to be presented to a judge that has a lot of experience in patent law. It is a difficult, complex legal issue in almost every case. And those cases take, sometimes, years before they are resolved in court, then on appeal, and the reversal rate is extremely high.

This legislation, hopefully, corrects that problem in giving those district judges that want to hear these cases that special expertise in hearing a great number of these cases, becoming experts and understanding the law, the complexities of the law and, hopefully, getting a better and quicker result in the courtrooms of the United States. I support this legislation.

I want to commend, once again, the two representatives from California, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Issa, for their long endurance over sponsoring this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 4005, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010, makes a simple, yet very important, technical change to Federal law to facilitate asset preservation for foreign countries. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I commend my colleague from California (Ms. Chu) in sponsoring this House companion to S. 4005. I would like to thank her for her work on this issue in bringing it before Congress.

Federal law currently provides procedures by which the Federal Government can seek a court order to preserve or freeze certain domestic assets on behalf of a foreign government. This is an important tool to take out of the hands of criminals the proceeds that fund their illegal operations.

Criminals will go to great lengths to stash their ill-gotten profits. And whether it is an international drug cartel, a terrorist group, organized crime syndicate, or simply a savvy computer hacker or corrupt corporation, the key to putting a stop to their crimes is to put a stranglehold on their money that they have illegally obtained. But a recent D.C. circuit court of appeals decision limits the ability of the United States to assist foreign governments in retaining and restraining those assets.

The court interpreted section 2464 of title 28, governing the entry of foreign judgments, to authorize a U.S. court to freeze assets only after the foreign court's final forfeiture judgment. This is a significant limitation on our ability to assist in foreign forfeiture proceedings. If forced to await until a final foreign judgment is entered, we run the risk of allowing thousands, if not millions, of dollars to slip through our hands into the hands of the criminals.

In many countries, like Mexico, their judiciaries operate at a much slower pace than ours, and their prosecution rates are much lower. In fact, the criminal conviction rate in Mexico is less than 10 percent. Therefore, a lot of times, by the time a forfeiture judgment is made, the target has already moved their assets someplace else. This hampers our ability to go after Mexican cartel members who have assets here in the United States. So unless Congress clarifies the scope of section 2467, we run the risk of losing cooperation from foreign governments in our request to seize assets that are held abroad.

The investigation into the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme undertaken by Allen Stanford demonstrates our need for foreign countries to continue to freeze assets on our behalf. To date, Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom have restrained a combined $400 million on behalf of the United States in just the Stanford case. This is money that certainly could have been lost if the United States was prevented from requesting such assistance from our allies until a final judgment was made.

The court of appeals was correct that it is not a court's role to substitute its view or policy for the legislation which has been passed by Congress. So I don't argue with the court's decision; but it is Congress' obligation to change and fix the law so that this does not occur in the future. With adoption of this legislation, Congress is establishing a clear and simple policy on the restraint of foreign assets.

So I commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn, and of course the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), for their efforts to clarify this statute. We must ensure that foreign governments can continue to rely on our assistance with their criminal prosecutions and the United States will continue to receive the same cooperation from our foreign allies.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the forfeiture concept is very important to the helping of our law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. It is the concept that criminals, drug cartels make a lot of money off the crimes they commit; and that money, when confiscated, should be not given back to the perpetrator, of course. It should be used for law enforcement and other worthwhile endeavors.

Under current law, this problem is an extreme problem because of the fact that many times, by the time the criminal cartel has been captured and they go to trial, they have hidden their assets and then there is no money to go back into the forfeiture.

So this legislation prevents this problem from occurring in the future. It allows the seizure of those assets where they can be used for law enforcement. It makes criminals pay the rent on the courthouse and pay for the system that they have created, and it helps in the forfeiture.

I cannot overemphasize how important forfeiture of illegal, ill- gotten gain is to our law enforcement agencies. Just one example of this: down on the Texas border where our sheriffs are operating on the border, we have got one county. The sheriff in Hudspeth County doesn't even have a budget for the motor pool; in other words, he has no vehicles that are funded at taxpayer expense. So the only way he gets vehicles is capturing drug cartels and drug runners when they come into Hudspeth County and forfeiting their vehicles to law enforcement. That is why they have a nice set of Escalades that they use in the fight on the drug cartel.

So forfeiture, whether it is vehicles or whether it is money, is extremely important to law enforcement; and we must continue to help them where we can and make the criminals pay for the system they have created and pay the rent on the courthouse.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the third front--the war zone that is our southern border with Mexico.

Violent behavior is reaching new lows in the Mexican border town of Juarez. Armed attackers busted into a kindergarten school and set it on fire.

Why?

Well, the criminal drug cartels found out the teachers in Juarez got a Christmas bonus, so they set up a new extortion racket. These outlaw banditos demanded a protection fee from the teachers to keep their students safe. When the teachers didn't pay up, armed attackers broke into the school and set it on fire.

Juarez is the most violent city in all of Mexico, and the violent cartels are bringing the war to the United States. Just last night, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by bandits in the border town of Rio Rico, Arizona. Our wide open borders are facilitating violence on both sides of the border war zone. Meanwhile, the administration just whistles past the graveyard.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation. Shigeru Yamada was born in Japan in 1992. When Shigeru was 10 years old, his mother brought him to the United States as a dependent on her student visa. In 1995 when Shigeru was 13 years old, his mother was killed in a car accident.

At the time of her death, Shigeru's mother was engaged to be married to an American citizen. If his mother had survived and in fact married the U.S. citizen, Shigeru would have obtained legal permanent resident status through her. Shigeru's natural father was an alcoholic and physically abusive to Shigeru's mother and the siblings. After the mother's death, Shigeru and the siblings were raised by an aunt in Chula Vista, California.

Although Shigeru's aunt attempted to formally adopt Shigeru, the adoption was not completed before the 18th birthday. Under current immigration law, Shigeru would have had to have been adopted before the age of 16 to obtain legal immigration status in the United States. Shigeru's younger sibling was adopted by another family while another sibling was married to an American citizen. Shigeru attended Eastlake High School and graduated with honors in 2000.

This bill easily fits within the modern-era private immigration bill precedent. Private immigration bills have been enacted where the foreigners, the aliens, have been abandoned by their parents or the parents had died. As this bill is consistent with private immigration bill precedent, and the Department of Homeland Security report revealed no adverse information about the beneficiary, I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, and I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for all of his efforts on companion legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I once again want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his efforts in this. It's a perfect example of how, if there's a problem, an issue with a constituent in a congressional district, the gentleman from Tennessee took the bull by the horns, so to speak, and solved this problem and brought it before the attention of Congress in an effort to resolve this problem.

I am pleased to support this bill for Hotaru Ferschke and would like to thank John Duncan for all his efforts on her behalf. Hotaru is the widow of the late Sgt. Michael Ferschke (U.S. Marine Corps). She was born in Okinawa, Japan, and met Sgt. Ferschke there in 2007, where he was stationed at USMC Camp Schwab. They dated for more than a year before Michael was deployed to Iraq in 2008.

Shortly before Michael was deployed to Iraq, the couple learned that Hotaru was pregnant. They had planned to marry before she became pregnant. Michael and Hotaru were married ``by proxy'' via telephone on July 10, 2008, while Sgt. Ferschke was in Iraq. They were never able to see each other after their marriage because Michael was killed in combat on August 10, 2008. Hotaru gave birth to Michael Ferschke, III on January 7, 2009. Michael is a United States citizen.

Normally, the Immigration and Nationality Act would allow Hotaru to receive her green card, despite the death of her husband. The INA provides that ``in the case of an alien who was the spouse of a citizen of the United States at the time of the citizen's death . . . if the citizen served honorably in an active duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States and died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by combat, the alien . . . shall be considered . . . to remain an immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death. . . .''

However, the INA also provides that the term spouse ``does not include a spouse . . . by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parties thereto are not physically present in the presence of each other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated.'' Thus, the Ferschke's marriage is not recognized for immigration purposes because it was never consummated.

This provision, enacted in 1952, was designed to prevent marriage fraud. However, according to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea, it is clear that the Ferschke's relationship was bona fide.

While there is no precedent for such a private bill, the case seems to be relatively unique and meritorious. There is no indication that there was any fraud associated with the Ferschke's marriage.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let us pay honor to the memory of Michael Ferschke and grant his widow a future in the U.S.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I strongly support a negotiated solution for peace in the Middle East, and this resolution will help do that.

Unfortunately, behind closed doors and behind the backs of Israelis and the United States, Palestinian leaders are reportedly holding high- level, unilateral discussions in pursuing recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums. In fact, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, on October 26 of this year said he supported recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations. The answer is to negotiate with Israel to make sure that there is a Palestinian state and not operate unilaterally without the help and negotiation of Israel. But this is not all.

Earlier this month, three South American countries--Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay--recognized Palestine as a state. Palestinian statehood recognition outside of talks with Israel is a bad idea, and it is not a peaceful solution to this problem.

If the Palestinian state is a sovereign state, what are the borders of this state going to be? Will terrorist acts now be seen as an act of war from a recognized state? Is this going to be a sovereign state within the sovereign State of Israel? No one knows because none of these questions have been answered with these countries who want to have a unilateral recognition of this state.

I am not saying that there can never be a Palestinian state, but what I am saying is certain conditions certainly should be met before a state can be established. And one of those, the foremost important one, is get to the table and negotiate with Israel. Quit worrying about what Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay think and be more concerned about what Israel thinks, because Israel must agree to whatever solution comes about in this negotiation.

If other countries follow Brazil and recognize Palestine, why would Palestine return to negotiations with Israel? They are already getting what they want without negotiations. I believe that without further negotiations with Israel, there will be violence in the Middle East; in fact, peace in the Middle East will be a far-off dream.

I think the administration needs to come out very strongly in opposition to this idea before more states recognize a Palestinian state. I think it is important that Congress show Israel that we stand with them. We stand for them because what is bad for them is bad for the United States and for the world and for the Middle East. So it is simple: Get back to the table with the people that are most concerned about a Palestinian state, that being the Israelis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Middle East Subcommittee, be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 628 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a veteran sheriff's deputy in Liberty County, Texas, with longstanding ties in the Cleveland Community, Deputy Odell McDuffie, Jr. Deputy McDuffie was tragically killed on October 25, 2010, in a single car accident. He was just 43 years of age. Deputy McDuffie was returning from transporting a juvenile to the Hardin County Detention Center when his patrol car left the roadway and struck a tree. There was a car fire and Deputy McDuffie was not able to escape.

Deputy McDuffie's family has a history of service. His brother, Cedric, currently works as an officer for Liberty Police Department. Cedric is also a City of Cleveland Councilman. His sister, Monique, is the former mayor of Cleveland.

Deputy McDuffie was a 17-year veteran with the Liberty County Sheriff's Department assigned to the Civil Division. He consistently performed as an outstanding officer serving in many different capacities. While working as a patrol deputy, mental health officer, correctional officer, court bailiff and jailer, he was always well respected throughout the community and amongst his peers. Deputy McDuffie will be remembered as a dedicated lawman, an active community leader, as well as a loving, devoted father and husband. According to his fellow officers, Deputy McDuffie served the citizens of Liberty County with pride, honor and commitment. He is described as a gentle giant who always managed to keep order even in the most difficult situations.

I express my sincere condolences to Deputy McDuffie's wife Emily, his three daughters as well as their friends and family throughout the great State of Texas. I commend them for persevering over the difficult job of their loved one serving as a law enforcement officer. Many of our dedicated successful officers have a significant family support system behind the scenes. The citizens of Liberty County have been touched by Deputy McDuffie's generosity, service, duty and commitment to his community.

On October 30, 2010, hundreds of citizens, friends, family and law enforcement officers filled Cleveland's Christian Life Center to pay tribute to Deputy McDuffie. For miles along the procession route, civilians and officers stood on the roadside to salute Deputy McDuffie. They came to honor a devoted public servant who touched the lives of all the citizens he served.

Police officers dedicate their lives to keeping our streets and communities secure. They selflessly venture into dangerous situations every day and put their lives on the line so that the rest of us can live in a safe environment. Deputy McDuffie was one of those officers who put his life on the line. He will be remembered as one of those elite individuals, who dedicated their entire career to protecting the people of Texas.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, for years we have heard of the horrors of international sex trafficking of children. It is an abomination that young children around the world are forced into this degrading, humiliating life. No child should have their innocence stolen in this manner.

We're only just beginning to hear about the traffickers that prey on our own children, right here in America. The FBI's Innocence Lost Task Force calls domestic minor sex trafficking the ``most overlooked and under-investigated form of child sexual abuse.''

Why aren't we paying closer attention to this in America? According to the FBI, it's because too many people believe that child prostitution is a victimless crime. How could a young boy or girl being forced into this lifestyle be victimless?

These children are abused and exploited. The horror of what they've been through in their young lives is almost too much to bear. Children are not willing participants in this trauma. This kind of thinking is wrong. These children are victims. The men that buy young boys and girls for sex are guilty of exploitation and abuse.

These sex traffickers and their customers are the filth of humanity. As one Texas Ranger told me, ``Judge, when you see one, get a rope.''

Houston, Texas, is one of the main hubs for human trafficking in the United States. We have been dealing with this problem for a long time. However, in recent years the city has made tremendous strides towards addressing it.

In Houston, we have one of the 42 Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance groups in the country. Together with the FBI's Innocence Lost initiative, they have rescued over 140 domestic victims. Numerous traffickers have been prosecuted, several receiving life sentences.

Earlier this month, I met with the Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance. Included in this group is Houston Constable Ron Hickman--a law enforcement leader in confronting the epidemic of trafficking in Texas. He and his officers told me that one of the biggest issues they face in combating trafficking is how to care for the victims.

More specifically, they told me that there is better care available to the international victims they rescue than there is for our own citizens. International victims are eligible to apply for a U-visa or a T-visa, which allows them to remain lawfully in the United States.

Immigrant service groups help them apply for free legal, medical, mental, housing and educational services. Internationally trafficked children can receive care in a residential facility, or in a long-term foster home. Basically, we provide a wealth of care to internationally trafficked victims, as we should.

It is a great thing to have these services. We should be doing all we can to rescue all children from this scourge.

But consider the resources that are available to a victim of domestic trafficking in Houston. At the moment law enforcement agents come across victims of domestic trafficking, they are required to take them into custody. Once in custody, domestic minor victims can only gain access to services by being labeled as delinquents and charged with a class B misdemeanor of prostitution, obtaining a permanent criminal record.

That's right--to gain access to short term services, they have to be arrested first. And these short term services do not even begin to address the severe physical and psychological trauma that these girls have survived.

Without access to this specialized care, it has been shown that trafficking victims simply return to their traffickers and continue the cycle of abuse. They have nowhere else to go, so they go back to the only life they know.

What we need in Houston and throughout the nation is specialized, long term, residential treatment facilities to care for victims of domestic minor sex trafficking. Any legislation that addresses this issue must include this victim-centered component.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 5575, introduced by my friends Congresswoman Caroline Maloney and Congressman Chris Smith, which pays close attention to the care and support of victims.

We have done a marvelous job caring for the victims that are trafficked across our border. We need to ensure that we are doing the same for our own children.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, they went off to war singing George M. Cohan's song, ``Over there,'' something to the effect that ``Over there, over there, send the word to beware that the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming and we won't be back till it's over over there. Those were the World War I doughboys, as they were called in the great World War I.

One of those individuals is Frank Buckles. Frank Buckles is an interesting individual. He was born in 1901, February 1, and he was born in Kansas. And when he was 16, the great World War I had already started. And he was at the Kansas State Fair, and he saw a recruiting poster, ``Uncle Sam Wants You.'' So he went to a local marine recruiter, wanted to join the United States Army to go fight the war to end all wars over there in Europe. The marines wouldn't take him. You're too small and you are not 18 years of age. And he continued to try to get in to the Marine Corps.

Finally, he decided he would try the United States Army. He went all the way to Oklahoma City. Being only 16 as he said later, I decided to really tell them a whopper and tell them I was 21. The Army recruiter said, Okay, we will sign you up. And he joined the United States Army after vigilantly telling people he was 18 when he was only 16, a volunteer to go fight in that war.

He signed up for the ambulance service, and the reason he signed up for the

ambulance service was because he heard that was the quickest way to get to the battlefield to help other young Americans that were already fighting that war to end all wars. And so he went overseas. He served in France. He drove an ambulance. He rescued not only Americans but the other allies that had been wounded and took them back behind enemy lines.

After the war was over with in 1918, having joined in 1917, Frank Buckles continued in Europe until he was discharged, protecting and guarding German prisoners of war. He came back to the United States, and before he was discharged, he was given $143.60 plus a bonus for serving in combat of $60. He came back to America, and of course there were not benefits in those days. There was no VA. You just went back home and started your own life.

In the great World War I, over 4 million Americans served; 117,000 of them died in Europe. Half of those doughboys died from what they obtained, the Spanish flu. Many of them didn't even know it. They got back to America and died from the Spanish flu that they had contacted while serving overseas.

Frank Buckles, being the kind of guy he is, he came back home. He started a new life. He decided to go to sea. He worked on different ships. In 1940, he found himself in the Philippine Islands. And as we all remember from American history, the Philippines were invaded by the Japanese, and there Frank Buckles was captured by the Japanese. And during World War II, he spent 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Having already served in World War I, he lied about his age so he could get in as a volunteer. Now in World War II, 3\1/2\ years of his life stolen from him by our enemies. He served in that prisoner of war camp.

He was finally released when Americans liberated the Philippines, came back to the United States and lived in West Virginia until the age of 102, Mr. Speaker, 102. He worked the farm. You know, he chose probably the occupation of America's past, the hardworking individual that works American soil. And that was Frank Buckles. He worked the soil.

Today, Frank Buckles--and here is his photograph, Mr. Speaker--is 109 years old. It is an honor for me to call Frank Buckles my friend. This photograph was taken in front of the D.C. memorial to World War I veterans which I will get to in a minute. So he is 109 years old today. Besides his remarkable life that continues, Frank Buckles is the lone survivor, the last doughboy alive that served in the United States Army and military during World War I.

There are two other survivors. They are both British individuals. They are 109. But he is older than they are. He will soon be 110 in February. So he is the last survivor, the last living doughboy that served our country.

He will soon be 110, Mr. Speaker. You know, 110 is old. To put it in perspective, it is about half of America's history this one person has lived through. He is still the great patriot that he was when he raised his right hand as a 16 year old in 1917 and swore to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

Now, I mention Frank Buckles in his own right because he is the last of this generation, those that lived and fought in World War I. You have to remember who these were; these were the fathers of the Greatest Generation, those individuals that we hold up, people like my dad who is 85 years of age, those who served in the great World War II. Those were the fathers of the Greatest Generation, people like Frank Buckles.

But you see, he still continues to fight for America and really fight for people that served in World War I because when I met Frank Buckles he was here at the Capitol. His mission now is to make sure that we honor as a Nation those who served and came back home in World War I and those that served and are still buried in graves only known by God in Europe, those other doughboys. His goal, and the goal I hope of most Americans now, is to make sure that they are properly honored.

You know, America has moved on since World War I. Not much was said after World War I. The American doughboys came home. They didn't have a whole lot of fanfare. They just merged back into society. Then all of a sudden came the Roaring 20s, the exciting 20s. Then there was the Depression for 10 years. Then all of a sudden we were in World War II. America just sort of moved on and left that generation the way they were when they returned. And I say that to say this: Because you see in this great Capitol, the greatest capitol in the world, the center of democracy, the center of liberty, the center of people who have values like Frank Buckles, we have in my opinion yet to honor these individuals. Let me explain.

Here not far from the Capitol on what we call the Mall, where we have the important memorials to America's past, we have built as a Nation memorials to three of the great wars of the last century. If you wander up and down the Mall, you will see the first memorial that was built. They were built in reverse order of when the wars occurred. The first one that was built is that black marble granite memorial to those young men in Vietnam, the 58,000 that went to Vietnam and came home, or rather did not come home. You remember Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, that was the war when America, we treated our troopers real bad. As a Nation, we treated them real bad when they came home. But we did build them a memorial, and it is not far from here. Today and every day when you go to the Vietnam Memorial, you will see people who put up flags and write notes to those great Americans from Vietnam.

And after that was built, then there is the memorial that was built on the Mall to the Korean war. Some of the politically correct folks still call that a conflict. Well, Americans died in the Korean war. We went over and fought somebody else's war again. That memorial shows that Americans going through a minefield in the snow, a great memorial to those Korean veterans, those that lived and those that died.

And then the most recent one, the one that many Americans are aware of because there was so much political fighting whether or not this memorial should be built, that is the World War II memorial that is built not far from here, that great memorial that honors the Greatest Generation, that shows how important it is for us to remember those individuals. As I mentioned, people like my dad who served as an 18 year old in the United States Army in Europe. Many people didn't want that memorial built on the Mall. You know, it is built on the Mall. They didn't want it built there. Anyway, politics got out of the way and Congress approved that memorial.

But there is no memorial for those who served in the first great war of the last century, and that is the World War I memorial. It is true there is a memorial near the Mall for those that served from Washington, D.C. Here is a photograph of that memorial, and a picture of Frank Buckles in front of it.

This photograph was taken a couple of years ago or, really, a year ago when he was there. This memorial is not even on the D.C. maps. Of all the things to do and see in Washington, D.C., this memorial is not even on there. The only reason I ever saw it is I was running by it one day, and I saw this memorial--or this monument, this structure--over in the weeds. I went over there and started reading it and realized what it was. It is not a fitting memorial but a memorial for the D.C. veterans who lived and died during World War I. You can see that it's cracked and that the stone is bad. It needs a lot of repairs. Finally, the repairs are starting to be made for that.

Make no mistake about it: this is a memorial for those from Washington, D.C. We don't have a memorial on The Mall for those who served from all over the United States, an appropriate memorial that, I think, should be built. The plan is and Frank Buckles' goal and mine and many others is to expand this memorial and to honor all those who served in that Great War, now almost 100 years ago.

There are really no advocates for this. I mean there are no lobbyists. There are no veterans left from World War I. No other veterans' groups have taken this on to encourage our building this memorial for him. An individual by the name of David DeJonge, who is an historian and a photographer, started doing research on the

last survivors of World War I. He has got photographs of all of them, of recent date, of those who have died--some of them have died--and he has done research on all of them. As I mentioned, there are only three from all over the world who fought from all nations, Frank Buckles being one of those. Some other individuals are encouraging Congress to give the authority to build this memorial.

In Kingwood, Texas, which is one of the places I represent down in Texas, there is an educator there by the name of Jan York. Jan York loves America like educators do. She got her Creekwood Middle School kids to do research a couple of years ago on World War I and on its last survivors, and that's when they came up with Frank Buckles. They, too, are passionate about making sure that a memorial is built on The Mall for all who served in World War I. Let me mention this:

There are memorials for the World War I veterans in different places in the United States. There is one in Kansas City. But can we have too many? Should we not have one on The Mall? I mean this is Washington, D.C. When you go through Washington, D.C., you see memorials and monuments for all kinds of people--wonderful people. Some of them aren't even Americans. The memorials and monuments are appropriate. They're needed. But should we not build a memorial on The Mall for all of those who served in World War I--the war that was supposed to end all wars? I think that we should.

Anyway, Jan York has helped her school get involved in this, and the Creekwood Middle School folks and other schools in the country are encouraging Congress to help build a memorial. This memorial is not going to be funded by taxpayer money. Don't get me wrong. This is not something the taxpayers are going to be required to contribute to. All Congress has to do is authorize its being built and there being a commission, and then private funds will be collected from groups like the Creekwood Middle School.

I want to thank Senator Rockefeller, who is down the hall in the Senate. He is helping to promote legislation that will allow us to move forward and have congressional approval to build this memorial on The Mall--this appropriate memorial for people like Frank Buckles, who is the lone survivor.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that we as a Nation understand our history. Many of us don't think about the past. We only think about the future. We think, unfortunately, many times: What can America give us? What can America do for us? as opposed to: What can we do for America? What can we do for people who have served our great country in the military, and what should we do as a Nation to honor those individuals?

America has always had to defend who we are as a Nation. I carry in my pocket, like maybe most Members of Congress, this little book, the Constitution of the United States, which has not only the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence in it as well.

If we just remember a little bit of history, just a little bit, back in the colonial days, in 1776, there were these Americans who did not like being treated a certain way by the most powerful empire that had ever existed in the history of the world--the British Empire. It was the most powerful empire at the time, and it was led by the most powerful king, King George. They got together, and they said, You know, we are going to liberate ourselves from this type of tyranny, which is how they looked at it. So they came up with this Declaration of Independence.

Now, in legal terms, what that meant was they indicted the King of England for crimes against the United States. Their remedy, the punishment for the King and for England, was to separate. They concluded their Declaration of Independence, that important document that later led to the Constitution, with this phrase:

``And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''

Then they had to fight for what they believed in--7, 8 years of long war to get this country free. Then it was the War of 1812, the Spanish- American War, the war with Mexico, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and we are still engaged in two great wars today.

In all of those wars, Mr. Speaker, it has been America's youth who has gone to war to protect the rest of us. Unlike other countries, it has been said that America goes to war not to conquer but to liberate. That is true. We've got troops fighting right now, not to conquer but to liberate. America goes to battle so that others will live in freedom. Our enemies go to battle so that others will die in tyranny. That is what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has always been the American warrior who has had to protect this document--people like Frank Buckles.

Today, occasionally, we get to see those great warriors from the current wars. They come back to this Capitol, and we see them. Many Members go visit the wounded warriors. I have had the honor to be in Iraq and Afghanistan and see our military in action. The finest military that has ever existed in the history of the world represents us today.

Yet, to some extent, at home, America is disengaged. We are more interested, unfortunately it seems, in what is in it for us as opposed to what is in it for America. Frank Buckles and the generations before him and after him have always asked: What is in it for America? What can we do for America?--not what America can do for us.

So it seems to me we owe it to Frank Buckles and we owe it to those doughboys who have all died, who have all passed away except him, to build and honor them for what they did for the rest of us--for without them, we certainly would not be here. Without each generation that has been called upon to bear arms to protect our Nation, we would not be here. Many of them died at young ages, including those 600,000 Americans who died in the Civil War, which is when our country went to war within itself.

It would be appropriate that we honor these individuals by approving this memorial on The Mall. It would be equally as important that we remember Frank Buckles, his being the lone survivor. I hope he lives a long time. He told David DeJonge not too long ago, I'm headed to 115.

Well, the way he is, he may get it. He's just that way.

Yet, when he passes away, we should honor him as the last doughboy. He should lie in state here in the Capitol rotunda. He should be buried with full military honors. Our Nation should remember him, as it is important we should remember all those who served throughout the United States, by building and approving the memorial here on The Mall.

You know, when they went overseas, they said they weren't coming back until it was over over there. They did not come back until it was over over there, and they came back victorious. We over here have the obligation and the opportunity to get it right over here. And the way we get it right is to honor Frank Buckles and honor all of those who served in the great World War I, those that served and did not come home and those that served and did come home, to continue the American way of life and preserving this little document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, every time a child is born, the Good Lord is making a bet on the future of mankind. Olivia Carolyn Shoemaker arrived in Dallas, Texas, Monday night, December 6, at 7 pounds and 19.5 inches.

She was affectionately referred to as Baby Shoe until named by her parents, Anthony and Kellee, Kellee being our youngest of four children. Olivia, although petite, has the legs of a long distance runner, and like her mother, Kellee, she has her mom's happy spirit. Having the intellect of her father, Anthony, I am sure she will be quoting the Constitution soon.

Mr. Speaker, God sends little girls to the world to soften up the rough edges of dads and help remove the hard crusty bark off grandfathers like me. There is absolutely nothing like a little girl.

My hope for Olivia is that she appreciate liberty, love God, and know she was born for a special reason, to make a world of difference in a world that just needs more little girls.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Chief of Police Hermila Garcia is the latest victim in the land of lawless days in Mexico. Chief Garcia was at her job only 51 days when she was brutally murdered by drug cartel assassins. In a brazen ambush, they shot Chief Garcia seven times when she was headed off to work.

So many police chiefs have been murdered in Mexico that no one wants the job. Trained officers are refusing promotions, leaving untrained citizens to run the police department. In the border town of El Vergel, two housewives are the top cops in town. In Chihuahua, the new police chief is a 20-year-old student.

There is a border war going on, and the violence will only get worse on both sides of the line of lawlessness. The rule of law is being stolen by the hand of the gun. We must help our neighbors in Mexico and also secure our border with armed National Guard troops. Otherwise, this wind brewing from the south will bring America the whirlwind.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Highway Administration is ordering all local governments to go out and purchase new road signs. Why? Because the brilliant bureaucrats say these signs are easier to read. It took 800 pages of ``easy-to-read'' regulations and redtape to mandate making letters two inches taller. The new signs must be reflective and cannot be in all caps. New York City alone will have to spend $27 million just to revamp their sufficient signs. Millions will be spent by other financially troubled cities.

Why is this happening? Because, as the saying goes, ``We're from government, and we're here to help you.'' What if the towns refuse to replace their perfectly good signs with the Federally authorized signs? Will the intrusive Federal street sign police come out and cart the city officials off to jail for road sign violations? And what's next? Will the Feds soon require signs be in multiple languages? Once again, Big Government solves problems that don't exist and answers questions no one is asking. And that's just the way it is.

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

I strongly support H.R. 5283. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, Haiti was hit by a massive earthquake and hundreds of thousands of people died. In reaction, the Department of Homeland Security announced a humanitarian parole policy under which orphaned Haitian children who were in the middle of an adoption process with prospective Americans would be immediately brought to the United States. Under this policy, about 1,200 Haitian children, orphans, came to the United States.

Since adoption proceedings were not yet completed when these children were brought to this country, they will have to live with their adoptive parents for 2 years before being eligible for permanent resident status in the United States. In the interim, they remain in parole status, which is to be renewed each and every year.

This legal limbo can be stressful to the children and to the families who have adopted them. We must remember, Madam Speaker, these children had already been approved for adoption to American parents.

Additionally, Representative Fortenberry from Nebraska was concerned about the impact of this delay on children and circumstances such as the death of adoptive parents. Mr. Fortenberry therefore introduced the Help HAITI Act of 2010. This bill grants immediate permanent residence to the airlifted Haitian orphans.

This legislation completes the humanitarian endeavor launched by the Department of Homeland Security and secures the futures of children who have already suffered a great deal. It is in the best tradition of American humanitarian response. The House has already passed the Fortenberry bill by voice vote. The Senate made some minor changes and passed the bill by unanimous consent.

I know personally how important this bill is to the children and families of this country. The Parker family, from my district in Kingwood, Texas, contacted my office shortly after the earthquake that devastated Haiti to get help in finalizing the adoption of their son.

Before the earthquake, the Parker family had been in the process of adopting a young Haitian named Ronel. Prior to the earthquake, Ronel had been cleared to immigrate to the United States. But after the bureaucratic breakdown following the earthquake, his adoption was held up. Fearing for Ronel's safety, Mr. Parker flew down to Port-au-Prince and slept on the floor of the United States Embassy for several days as he haggled with United States and Haitian authorities to permit the adoption. Finally, after many sleepless nights, the adoption was permitted and Ronel was allowed to fly to his new home in Kingwood, Texas.

A few weeks after making his way to his new home, I was fortunate to meet this young American. Although he was still learning English, and I don't speak Creole very well, we communicated just fine. My staff even took up a collection to buy him his first pair of Texas cowboy boots. It was clear that he was very intelligent and had a strong heart, and he was very happy to be in America with his new American family. I am confident that Ronel will grow up to be a fine American and a fine Texan, and we are proud to have him in this country.

It is for children like Ronel and the families like the Parkers that I urge support for this legislation. The families of these 1,200 Haitian adoptees have gone through enough, and these parents are to be admired by all of us.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, as amended by the Senate, so we can send it to the President for his signature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the sponsor of the original legislation, as much time as he wishes to consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to the floor. It's very important to the Parker family in my district, the people that Mr. Fortenberry in Nebraska mentioned, and the 1,200 families and children that are going to now have a good Christmas because that legislation has passed in the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.