Floor Statements

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

The purpose of H. Con. Res. 328 is to express the sense of Congress regarding the successful and substantial contributions of the Bayh-Dole Act on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its enactment. The Act establishes the rules of the road governing patent rights when the Federal Government and private entities participate in joint research that produces patentable inventions. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides Congress with the authority ``to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.''

The drafters of the Constitution, however, couldn't have predicted that the Federal Government would one day become a catalyst for the development of advanced technologies. Prior to Bayh-Dole, the Federal Government permitted the private sector to commercialize less than 5 percent of the government's patent portfolio. As former Senator Robert Dole stated in 2005, the government's track record on promoting university-born technologies during the 1960s and 1970s was ``dismal.'' The failure to capitalize on this important research delayed innovations that could have improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. What was the government doing wrong before 1980? Simply put, the government was focused on something else. At the time, at least 26 distinct Federal agency policies controlled how the federally funded research and development could be used.

Bayh-Dole fundamentally changed the government's patent policy by replacing helter-skelter licensing practices with a single uniform policy. This shift created the incentives that private industry, including small businesses, nonprofits, and universities, needed to risk their capital and develop patented inventions. Bayh-Dole has created a culture of cooperation and collaboration among government, university, and private-sector researchers. The act contributed to the commercial development of new industries such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

In 2003, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology affirmed the importance of Bayh-Dole by reporting that it dramatically improved the Nation's ability to move ideas from research and development to the marketplace and into commerce. This same organization determined that the system for transferring technology from nonprofit institutions, which includes universities, hospitals and government laboratories, to the private sector has worked very well.

H. Con. Res. 328 reaffirms Congress' commitment to the policies and objectives of Bayh-Dole. This Act has sparked 30 years of enhanced research and development within the United States, leading to dramatic improvements in public health and safety, a strengthened higher education system in the United States, and the development of new domestic industries that have created tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs for America's citizens. Mr. Speaker, Bayh-Dole illustrates how the government and private industry can work together for the good of the American people. I salute the authors of Bayh-Dole and reaffirm my commitment to this Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The copyright bill before us today is an important housekeeping measure that contains largely technical and clarifying amendments to title 17 of the United States Code. For the few changes that are more substantive in nature, they are noncontroversial and are recognized as improvements to a code that is all too often perceived as complex.

S. 3689, the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010, was originally introduced and passed by the other body on the 2nd day of August. Since that time, the House Committee on the Judiciary has worked in a bipartisan manner to consider the measure and to incorporate modest improvements to the bill.

While I expect the majority to detail most of the bill's provisions, I do want to note some significant provisions, including an important change from the measure that passed the other body in August. That change is in the deletion of language contained in section 4(a) that would amend the Copyright Act to permit the owner of an exclusive right to sublicense that right or further transfer it if the original copyright owner had not expressly prohibited these actions in a prior written agreement.

This provision raised a number of concerns among copyright owners who feared that those who had relied on a prior judicial decision in the case of Gardner v. Nike might be disadvantaged by such a change. In recognition of these serious concerns, both the chairman and ranking member agreed this issue ought not be addressed in this measure.

Another substantive improvement that is worth noting is contained in section 5(b) of the bill, as amended. That provision makes clear that regulations issued by the copyright royalty judges are to be approved by the Librarian of Congress and subject to review of Federal courts.

This bill also contains one amendment to trademark as opposed to copyright law. That amendment, which is contained in section 6(h), amends a study requirement that was included in Public Law 111-146, the Trademark Technical Amendments Act, earlier this year.

In closing, the purpose of S. 3689, the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010, is to make modest but needed changes to the Copyright Act. I urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass the bill with the amendments contained herein.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank Representative John Lewis, the gentleman from Georgia, for authoring this legislation and for his long, long work, many years in the civil rights movement, along with the chairman, for bringing this legislation to the House floor and his work in the civil rights movement.

This resolution recognizes and honors the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges. Now, unlike the chairman, I think 50 years was a long time ago, but maybe it wasn't. But it was 50 years any way you look at it since Ruby Bridges played a role in desegregating a previously all- white public elementary school in the South.

I was in elementary school at the same time she was, but not the same school having been in Texas and going to school there.

In 1954, this all started when the United States Supreme Court made possible desegregation of American schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Six years later, Ruby Bridges, an African American child, a first grader, would help further the goal of the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Sometimes we have to leave it up to the kids to get things done. In this case, it was a first grader, a 6-year-old in elementary school who just wanted to go to school, and she was determined to get an education.

In 1960, she had started to attend William Frantz Elementary School. It was an all-white school in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the New Orleans school system. She endured hateful crowds and threats to her physical safety. White parents initially pulled their kids out of the school, and only one teacher taught Bridges for more than a year.

Robert Coles, a child psychiatrist who provided counseling to this young girl, later wrote a book, a children's

book called ``The Story of Ruby Bridges,'' to educate other children about this child's role in desegregating not just one school but really, in essence, all the schools in the United States both in the South and the North.

The courage demonstrated by Bridges and her parents continues to serve as an inspiration for children and adults. After 50 years, her example still encourages us to uphold the principles of equality and respect in our own lives and in our own culture. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao), who not only is from Louisiana, he is from New Orleans, Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for bringing not just this legislation, but all the legislation that has been brought up today to the House floor, and to emphasize the point that he made: Good legislation, most important legislation, is bipartisan legislation. What most Americans don't realize, most legislation is bipartisan that is passed through this House, and it will continue to be so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it was just another day on the Texas border on October 1, 2010. A young couple, David and Tiffany Hartley, were on Falcon Lake.

Falcon Lake is a massive lake that borders Mexico in the State of Texas, an international border. They were on their jet skis, and they traveled across the international line into Mexico. They had gone to see an old mission that was partially submerged in Falcon Lake.

On their way back coming into the United States, they were being chased by three boats full, obviously, of drug cartel members--later we learned they were the Zeta drug cartels--firing automatic weapons at David and Tiffany Hartley. David was shot in the back of the head. Tiffany tries to help, but they were still shooting, so she flees.

She comes back into the United States, and one of the boats--get this, Mr. Speaker--follows her into the United States for over 3 miles until she got ashore and finally sought safety with some passerby that was standing there. Then this boat casually goes back into Mexico.

David Hartley was murdered on October 1, 5 weeks ago. The way the current runs in Falcon Lake, his body would have been into the American side in about 2 hours had not someone taken his body out of the water or cut the life preserver off of him or both. His body has never been found.

The Mexican Government quickly accused Tiffany Hartley of being the culprit--the audacity--just to not investigate this case. David Hartley's body has never been found. The perpetrators who murdered him and shot at Tiffany Hartley have never been prosecuted.

A detective by the name of Rolando Flores from Mexico was assigned to investigate this case. He apparently was the only person investigating this case. Soon after he started investigating it, his beheaded body turned up in front of a police station. Mexico quickly decided: We are not investigating the case. And, of course, they have not.

Mexico has an awful track record of solving homicides, not just homicides of Americans in Mexico, but of Mexican nationals who are murdered in the name of selling drugs across that border and bringing them into the United States. So this case has not been solved. I doubt it will ever be because of the ineptitude of the Mexican Government to preserve and defend and protect people in Mexico.

As Sheriff Sigi Gonzalez of Zapata County has said: This area is a trafficking area for drug cartels. The Zeta drug cartels have operational control of parts of that lake and bring drugs into the United States at night.

I went down to Falcon Lake along with Sheriff Gonzalez' people. We went up and down the lake in speed boats. Of course, before we were allowed to get on the boats, we had to make sure that the locals who were taking us there had automatic weapons and everybody was wearing a bulletproof vest. Then we flew up and down the international border of this massive lake, some 60 miles long, almost 8 miles wide.

Interesting to note, Mr. Speaker. The entire time we were on the lake either in a boat or flying over it, we saw no other boats on either side. No Americans are out on the lake. No Mexican nationals are out on the lake. For 6 hours we toured that lake and we saw no one, and the reason is it is dangerous. People on both sides of the borders don't go on that lake because it is not under the operational control of either Mexico or the United States. It is under the operational control of the Zeta drug cartel. That is a very unfortunate situation.

This is one instance of many where there are places on the international border with the country of Mexico where neither country has operational control of the border, and it is time that we force them to do something about this nonsense that is taking place, the murder of Americans.

Since then, there have been other Americans murdered in Mexico. Have these been crimes solved? Of course those crimes have not been solved.

We were just hearing comments by the other side about being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is true. We go to war and fight the battles in other countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, we defend the borders of other nations. Maybe it is time we come home and defend our own borders and protect our borders as well as defending borders in Afghanistan and Iraq, because it is the first duty of government to protect the people.

So what do we need? We need more boots on the ground. We need National Guard troops on the ground. We need more Air National Guard, Coast Guard, and we need the help of the Border Patrol to protect the dignity and sovereignty of the United States to keep the drug cartels from bringing that cancer into the United States, because it is the first duty of government to protect the people, and it is about time we protect all the citizens of this country.

And that's just the way it is.

I appreciate your yielding time, Judge Gohmert. Yes, on November 2 the American public, the American people, the American voters went to the polls and they voted. And it's a good thing that they vote, and we have the right to vote. As you mentioned, Judge Gohmert, the right to vote in this country is sacred. And we should always treat it that way to make sure that in all elections that the voting box and the voting ballot are sacred and only valid voting takes place anywhere in the United States.

I heard a lot of comments, as did many Members of Congress--probably all Members of Congress--during the recess before the election, and one of the biggest concerns was the runaway spending that the government seems to be addicted to. And it seems to be an addiction of spending somebody else's money--the taxpayers' money--people who work every day and go out and try to support their families.

One startling statistic, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar that the government spends on something, whether it's a good project or it's a worthless project, for every dollar the government spends, forty-two cents of that dollar is borrowed money. So we don't have the money. The bank is broke. And we can't print it fast enough. So we have to borrow the money. Forty-two cents on every dollar. Now that's kind of hard to understand how much that is, but that's a lot of money. Almost half of what we spend is borrowed money. But that forty-two cents amounts to approximately, every year, just on the interest payment of that forty- two cents, $600 billion. That's with a B. Now we're talking about real money--$600 billion.

The war in Iraq I understand so far has cost up to $720 billion total for the entire Iraqi war. But yet just the interest American taxpayers have to pay on that forty-two cents is around $600 billion every year. And, of course, who does that money go to? It goes to our good friends, the Chinese, who own most of our debt. And there are other countries that we borrow money from, too. It puts us in a bad national security position when we have to go overseas and ask countries to lend us some more money. The American public, I think, is tired of those days and want the borrowing, the spending, and of course the taxes to all stop where they are. I hope Members of this body in January have heard the American people and that we get our house in order and we quit spending somebody else's money and reduce the size of government, get government out of our lives, and have government work for us instead of work against us, as so many people have said.

One of the other two things that I heard during the recess, or the break, before the election was the concern that people had about this lame-duck session, that we are now a part of the lame-duck session where we have come back and there's a lot of legislation that hasn't been addressed, and people are concerned about Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have been defeated still here to vote on legislation even though the public has not returned them for the next Congress. Maybe one thing that we need to do in future Congresses on election year, the Federal election year, the even year, that the session of Congress end on election day, therefore there is no lame- duck session because Congress adjourns on election day and doesn't return until the following January. Therefore, we prevent some of the concerns that people all over the country have mentioned about people returning in both parties who have been defeated in their elections.

The third issue, of course, as you know, Judge Gohmert, in Texas, although the economy was the number one issue for most people in the United States, in our State the number one concern among voters was the lack of border security with our neighbors in Mexico. And we've heard all of the recent cases of Americans being murdered just on the other side of the border. And, of course, there are Mexican nationals that are getting murdered as well. And they're not all members of the drug cartel or affiliated with the drug cartel. They're just good folks trying to earn a living as well, but they get in the way of the drug cartels. And it seems to me that this is a national security issue. And people who say that the border is secure, I invite them to go with me down to the Texas-Mexico border and then you can make up your mind firsthand.

Of course, earlier we talked about the situation on Falcon Lake, this massive lake. Nobody is on the lake on either side of the border because it's not safe. The safest thing on Falcon Lake are the fish because nobody's out there fishing and those bass are probably getting rather large by now. And that's an unfortunate situation for not only Americans but Mexican nationals as well.

And we also now hear that we have the extortion racket taking place on the American side. There are reports that Americans of Hispanic descent living on or near the American border are being extorted of money to protect some relative they have on the other side of the border. And that protection racket is being run, we understand, by, of course, the drug cartels.

So you've got money and guns going south of the border and you've got people and drugs coming north of the border. And their operational control of the border is by the drug cartels. You see, the Mexican Government doesn't protect their border any better than we do because that's how come guns can get in. Of course, I don't know if the Mexican Government complains about the money coming south of the border or not. But either way, that money is illegally going back into Mexico by the drug cartels.

So what do we need to do? I think we ought to put more boots on the ground. The Border Patrol does as good a job as we'll let them do, but they need some help. It is a national security issue, and we need to put the National Guard on the border and allow them to do their job to prevent people from coming into the United States, especially the drug cartels, who have operational control of portions of the Texas-Mexico border and other portions of the border in Arizona, New Mexico, and California as well.

To show you how serious and how dangerous it is to be living or be in one of the cities in Mexico near the border, you've got in El Paso--and I don't know, Mr. Gohmert, if you were stationed at Fort Bliss or not-- but you have Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, a military base where our troops come and go from Fort Bliss to Iraq and Afghanistan. They go off to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They come back to Fort Bliss, but they cannot cross the river and go into Juarez, Mexico, because it's off limits to people in the military. So we send our young men and women off to war, but they can't cross the river into our neighbor's country because it's too dangerous. And that's an unfortunate situation not just for Americans but certainly an unfortunate situation for Mexican nationals who just want to survive on their side of the border as well.

So it's become a national security issue. It is an issue of great concern to people along the border. And I hope more Americans understand how the border has become in places a place of really no- man's land except for the drug cartels who shoot their way across the border and shoot anybody that gets in their way.

And I will yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I think that the current plan really is a two-part plan. The plan isn't just to erect a few signs in Arizona, saying, We can't take care of you. Travel north of Interstate 8 and, as you mentioned, really secede the land south of Interstate 8 to the drug cartels. That may be part of the plan. That's plan A of a two-part plan.

Plan B, though, is: We're also, as the government, going to sue States that try to defend themselves.

So put up some signs and sue States that try to protect their citizens, like the State of Arizona, where both of these incidences are occurring.

I think it is tragic that the United States Government has gone to court and has spent who knows how much taxpayer money in suing a State that wants to protect the people of that State and wants to enact State laws that do what the Federal Government is supposed to do but which obviously it won't or cannot do.

Yes. Investigator Rolando Flores, from Mexico, had just started the investigation into the death and murder of David Hartley when he was beheaded. Of course, when the Zetas and other drug cartel members behead someone and then throw his body in a place like in front of the police station or city hall, it's to send a message.

And they sent a message and they sent a message first to the Government of Mexico: Back off, Falcon Lake is ours. And 5 weeks later, it looks like the Mexican government backed off. No one's ever been held accountable for that homicide. The body was never found of David Hartley, and so that was the warning of unfortunately an obviously good man, Investigator Rolando Flores, but it was also a message to the United States, that Falcon Lake belongs to them. It doesn't belong to Mexico. It doesn't belong to the United States. But portions of it, right there in the middle, have operational control by the Zetas at night, and it belongs to them.

Apparently, that message has gotten to our government as well because 5 weeks later it doesn't seem like anything has occurred to improve the situation. In the meantime, more people, Mexican nationals and American citizens, have been murdered on the border on the Mexican side. I would hope that we won't need more people being murdered, regardless of their nationality, on the border to get the attention of most Americans and Members of this House that this is a national security issue. It goes back to the basics that it is the government's responsibility to protect the country, and I don't see, in my opinion, that we are protecting the people of the United States by the way the border is insecure, and we need to do whatever is necessary to secure our side of the border and our sovereignty and also to help Mexico rid itself of the corruption that it has in the government and in law enforcement.

It's a tough job to be over there and be an honest cop. We need to help them as well and work both sides because we have a mutual responsibility I think with Mexico and they with us to protect the safety of Americans and Mexican nationals who live along the border.

I'm sure you've traveled there, as well as I have, and when you go to those small towns, people are afraid. They're just afraid, and nobody should have to live that way in fear of some narco-terrorist coming across whenever they want to with automatic weapons, bringing those drugs into the United States, and then, whenever they

want to go back, they just cross back into Mexico because the Mexican government has the same issues we do about insecure borders.

Yes, of course, this is an issue that's not partisan issue. As my friend, former Sheriff Rick Flores has said, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a red, white, and blue issue. He used to be a border sheriff in Laredo.

There are those who say, well, the answer is this, don't go to Mexico; it's too violent so don't go down there. Well, first of all, I don't think that's a realistic point of view, in other words, it's okay for people in Mexico to be violent and the drug cartels to have their way and try to run roughshod over the Mexican military and law enforcement. I think that's an insensitive comment regarding our neighboring country, Mexico. They are our neighbors. We ought to be concerned about what takes place down there.

But also that comment is a lack of understanding of the border culture. The border culture, especially in Texas and I'm sure this is true in Arizona, New Mexico and maybe California, goes back hundreds of years where there is cross-border travel, and we need and want cross- border travel. I think we should have legitimate travel across our border into Mexico and Mexico into the United States as long as it's verified that the people are coming in with permission.

But many families have citizens who live in Mexico and Mexican nationals and American nationals and they're related and they want to go back and forth across the border, and this type of attitude, well, don't go into Mexico, that's just telling family members on this side, you can't go see relatives on the other side. And that is not the situation we want to be in and to say that that's their problem, it's not our problem. It is our problem because we need to be good neighbors and we need to help in every way we can to secure the border. When we have a secure border, it helps not only the United States but it also helps Mexico as well.

We should be concerned about the violence in Mexico, not just because it's coming over into the United States, because it does affect Mexican nationals and it affects Mexican nationals who have relatives and family members on the American side of the border. So it is a complex issue, and verified border security, making sure that people don't cross without permission, is something that we have talked about for a long time in this Congress. And as my grandfather used to say, When all is said and done, more is said than done and not much has happened.

So we secure the border first, and then we work on those other issues, but it's certainly something that I think is a national security issue. I wish we had stronger leadership from our government to secure that southern border of the United States because a lot of good people on both sides of the border are losing their lives because of the government's failure to act, other than put up some signs and sue States that try to defend and protect their citizens because the government doesn't.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of the annual September celebration of the harvest of rice in the United States.

For centuries, rice has been the primary food staple for over half of the world's population. Today, the United States and countries around the world still enjoy rice as a dietary staple, but also as the foundation for many dishes and side dishes. Rice is enjoyed as part of cereal, flour, bran, cooking oil, rice cakes and many other snacks.

Rice production has and continues to be a significant source of revenue for the American economy. In fact, rice production in the United States dates back to 1685 and is one of the oldest agribusinesses in the United States. Rice continues to be produced in force by 10,500 rice farmers in the States of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and in my home State of Texas. In fact, I am proud to have 45 active rice farmers working on 20,000 acres of rice fields in the district that I represent--the most of any Congressional district in Texas. In Texas alone, the rice industry has created 2,700 jobs and $1.6 billion in total economic activity.

Rice farming is of critical importance to the economy of my district and to the southern United States. In 2009, rice farmers in the U.S. produced nearly 22 billion pounds of rice that had a farm gate value of more than $3 billion. Subsequent sales of rice generated $17.5 billion in total value added to the U.S economy. This activity contributed 127,000 jobs to the U.S. labor force in 2009. Additionally, the U.S. is one of the largest exporters of rice and produces more than two percent of the world's rice supply, feeding millions around the world.

I am proud to represent the rice farmers of the second district of Texas, and to recognize their achievements during National Rice Month.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of objections to the contrary, a fence is still being built along the southern border. Illegals objected to this but the President is resilient. He is standing firm on his commitment to build the fence to keep illegals out.

You see, over 500,000 illegals cross the border every year into Mexico, and the fence is being built at the southern end of Mexico to keep people like Guatemalans out. It's the Mexican southern border that they're protecting.

You know, Calderon demands that the United States not build a fence. He arrogantly demands the Arizona law not be enforced, but when Mexico has problems with illegals coming to ``take jobs that Mexicans won't do,'' Calderon says he's building a fence on his southern border, whether illegals like it or not.

Every country has the right to defend its border. We should stop listening to anything President Calderon says and do what's right for our country. Secure our borders by sending immediately the National Guard to our southern border.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it is September and back home in Texas that can only mean one thing--football season is in full swing. Each week helmets are buckled and cleats are tied as hundreds of teams line up to compete across the state, from the Pop Warner leagues up to the professionals. I was honored to be a part of history as the Lamar University Cardinals played and won its first home game in over twenty years against the Weber International University Warriors.

Lamar University began playing football in 1923, when it was known as South Park Junior College. The team was a Southland Conference power in the late 1960s, notching four championships in seven years. In 1989, the program was discontinued, forcing alumni and football fans in the area to choose a new favorite college team. Now, after several years of hard work, the Cardinals are back on the gridiron with all of Southeast Texas supporting them.

The first steps towards bringing football back to Lamar were taken in January 2008, as the student body voted for a tuition increase to help fund the program. That tells you all you need to know about the hunger for football in Southeast Texas. Lamar University President Dr. James Simmons and Athletic Director Billy Tubbs searched long and hard for the coach who could oversee the rebirth of the football program from the ground up. The right man for the job was 20-year coaching veteran and former NFL player Ray Woodard. He assembled a staff of experienced coaches and developed an offensive and defensive scheme without a single player recruited.

When it came time to recruit players, Coach Woodard made good on his promise to attract local talent. Nine of his starters come from the area and he has eleven additional local back-ups. Leading the offense is Quarterback Andre Bevil, who played high school football a short drive down the road at West Orange-Stark. The defense is headed by former West Brook High School standout Jacody Coleman. Lamar is a young team with no senior starters, leaving the Cardinals with a bright future.

The Cardinals opened their returning season in Lake Charles, Louisiana, with a nail-biting 30-27 loss to longtime rival and nationally ranked McNeese State University. There was little time to lament, as the following week was sure to be one of the biggest events in Southeast Texas sports history--the return of football to Lamar University.

As I made my way through the Lamar campus on September 11, the sights I saw amazed me. Fans wearing red and white were lined up as far as the eye can see, enjoying the spirit of community that only college football can bring. I met some alumni who had been there battling the intense Texas heat since noon, others who flew in from across the Nation to witness the first home game in 21 years.

By kickoff time, the standing room only crowd of 16,600 was as loud and excited as I have ever seen. Less than two minutes into the game, Quarterback Bevil hit wide receiver J.J. Hayes for a 25-yard touchdown pass that had the newly remodeled Provost Umphrey stadium rocking. The Warriors evened the score at 7-7 in the first quarter. Then, both defenses stood strong, not allowing a score until Bevil threw a 57-yard touchdown pass to receiver Kendrick Prejean towards the end of the third quarter. In the end, the Cardinals prevailed 21-14, lead by Bevil and another local talent, former Lumberton running back Cody Hussey on the offense. Linebacker Asim Hick led the defense with 8 tackles and a sack.

Madam Speaker, after years of rumors and false starts, football has returned to Lamar University in grand fashion. The team is loaded with local, talented players. They have beautiful new facilities that help bring in the ``big game'' college experience. I am proud to celebrate the hard work that numerous people put in to bring college football back to Lamar University. I wish them the best of luck in the future. Finally, GO BIG RED!!

And that's the way it is.

Madam Speaker, some things do not need to be elaborated on. Rudy Giuliani, a great American, recently spoke at a rally in New York City where 20,000 people showed up to protest the dictator Ahmadinejad and his corrupt regime. Ahmadinejad was in town to spew more of his hateful deology. This time, he interlaced his anti- Semitic rhetoric with conspiracy theories on 9/11. This man does not speak for the Iranian people, who only want freedom to live their lives without the shackles of a regime bent on preserving its power at all costs. The courageous opposition group MEK, who organized the rally, is fighting for this very freedom. The State Department has got them wrong--they are not a terrorist organization and should not be listed as one. Mayor Giuliani agreed with me and I'd like to submit his comments for the record.

God bless you and thank you very much for being here. I

come here today for a very simple reason, to stand with you

in support of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution

of the United States and also the basic rights guaranteed by

the preamble to the United Nations Charter. We need to remind

the United Nations of what it stands for. According to the

preamble of the United Nitions, it exists to reaffirm faith

in fundamental rights in the dignity and worth of the human

person, and in the equal rights of men and women and of

nations large and small.

The people of Iran are as entitled as all of us to make a

claim on the nations of the United Nations to reaffirm these

goals for them; and that is what you are here to do.

For too long the world has acquiesced in a regime in Iran

that through mass murder, violence and intimidation has

denied basic rights of your brothers and sisters and friends

and relatives and has been a consistent supporter of

terrorism and of terrorist organizations beyond its borders.

All of you are here today to cry out for the world to stand

with you and your brothers and sisters who are oppressed by

the brutal regime in Iran.

They desire freedom! I desire freedom! We all desire

freedom! No one can deny you your desire for freedom! I

believe that desire is placed in your heart and soul by the

Creator! It comes from above. Not from here, not from below,

but from above. It is a basic human desire that the people of

Iran are entitled to and it is a basic human desire that all

good people should support.

And if this institution that stands behind us, the United

Nations, wants to reclaim its lofty goal of protecting human

rights; which is a goal that has alluded it for many many

years, then it must stand with you against the regime in

Iran, against the brutalization that goes on in Iran, and

against the supporting of terrorism.

And it is time here in America to right a wrong that has

been done to you and your cause out of a misguided notion

that the violent and tyrannical regime of Iran could be

mollified. It is about time that we change the listing of the

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran as a terrorist

organization.

I've studied terrorism for much longer that I'd like to

admit. For over 35 years. I have investigated terrorism, and

I've seen firsthand, in my city, the devastation that

terrorism can bring about.

This is not a terrorist organization. This is an

organization dedicated to achieving freedom and dignity for

its people.

It is time for the rest of our Congress to join 823

members--Democrats and Republicans--who have supported House

Resolution 1431 which calls for the lifting of this unjust,

unfair and inaccurate designation. It has been lifted by the

British government; it has been lifted by the European Union;

it should be lifted by the United States Congress and

President Obama should support it as a defender of freedom.

Just as this great country of America is described as the

last best hope for humanity, you and your cause are truly the

best hope for Iran.

Your quest is as legitimate as solidarity was for Poland.

And it took lovers of freedom and leaders of historical

consequence like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope

John Paul, to stand with Solidarity no matter the

consequences.

Your goals are our goals, they are the goals of a decent

people; you want to guarantee equal rights for men and women;

you want to see freedom of religion and speech and press;

freedom of assembly in Iran, you want Iran that does not

threaten the existence of other nations; and you want an Iran

that is under no circustances a nuclear power.

It is your members and associates who have consistently

drawn open the secret curtain that Iran tries to draw on its

plans to develop nuclear weapons.

It is your members who have risked their lives and lost

their lives revealing the plans and steps of Ahmadinejad and

the regime to acquire nuclear weapons.

Without your brave investigations and revelations, America

and the world would still be laboring under the inaccurate

information that was contained in the National Intelligence

Estimate of 2007 that said Iran had appeared to abandon its

plans to build nuclear weapons. Your members, your

associates, revealed that to be incorrect, inaccurate, and

dangerously wrong.

If the history of the 20th century has taught us anything,

it is that we must confront tyrants, oppressors, bullies and

terrorists as early as possible.

Acquiescence only leads to increasing loss of human life

and human liberty.

For too long the world has stood still as the people of

Iran, particularly those of you desiring freedom, have been

oppressed, imprisoned and slaughtered by a regime that has no

right to exist.

It's time to make common cause with you in your noble

quest.

It is a risk that is worth taking.

It is a cause that is worth the risk.

If the forebears of this country didn't take the risk for

freedom, then this great nation would not exist.

Your people, the people of Iran, are willing to fight for

freedom; you are willing to speak out against horrible

atrocities to human dignity. And when they do, this country,

America, should strongly stand with them, and speak out for

them.

No more silence! Where is our Ronald Reagan when we need

him? Ronald Reagan

would have stood with the people of Iran, strongly, bravely,

and forthrightly. When they sought to protest the

inaccuracies and illegitimacy of the elections in Iran,

Ronald Reagan would have America standing with them toe to

toe, body to body and person to person, as he did with

Solidarity. Where is our Ronald Reagan when we need him?

One of the most monumental celebrations of freedom was on

Christmas Day, 1989 in Berlin.

It was in the city of Berlin that severs years earlier

Ronald Reagan standing by the wall that then divided the free

from the oppressed and stood in front of that wall and he was

not afraid to stand up and said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down

this wall.''

Now, in our time, we need a Ronald Reagan to cry out to the

oppressors of your people to tear down the wall of tyranny,

tear down the wall of oppression, tear down the wall of

terrorism, and of slaughter.

On that Christmas Day of 1989 in Berlin the wall had been

torn down because brave people like Ronald Reagan and many

others were willing to stand with protesters and the

oppressed in those communist countries. They weren't afraid

to speak out and they weren't afraid to confront. Leonard

Bernstein conducted a performance of Beethoven's ninth

symphony that day and he called it a ``celebration of human

freedom.'' I hope and I pray that you and I will go to Iran

together; I hope we can have a celebration of freedom for the

people of Iran because a celebration of freedom for Iran will

be the celebration of freedom for all of us.

But that day is not going to come about by begging

Ahmadinejad to negotiate. It is not going to come about from

weakness. Bullies thrive from weakness. Tyrants are

encouraged by weakness. They know only one thing: Strength.

They must be confronted with America's strength, not

America's weakness. America, the world, all of us must make

it plain that under no set of circumstances will Ahmadinejad

be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That is not negotiable.

No discussion. No argument. No debate.

No! No! No, to nuclear weapons!

And instead, I say Yes to freedom, Yes to democracy, Yes to

a free press, Yes to freedom for women, Yes to human dignity

for Iran and for all of us.

God bless you in your noble pursuit! I stand with you and

all freedom loving people stand with you. God bless you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true American Hero, Charles Milton Young, who recently passed away at the age of 91. I am honored to recognize Charlie's brave and commendable service to the United States of America. Charlie Young proudly served our Nation in World War II as a United States Marine in 1944-1945. During his service, he sustained a severe injury during the battle of Okinawa, leading to a 9-month hospitalization. In fact, he distinguished himself in combat so greatly that he was awarded the Purple Heart and the Excellence in Service medals. There is nothing nobler than answering the call to serve your country. His actions are a true testament to his patriotism. It is always sad when we lose a hero; however, it also brings us hope when we remember men of the Greatest Generation, like Charlie, who have walked among us.

Charlie was a dedicated family man, having been married to his wife Hazel for 72 years. He was also the proud father of four children, 17 grandchildren, 50 great grandchildren, and 6 great-great grandchildren. Charlie and Hazel met and married in Beeville, Texas and later moved to Corpus Christi to raise their family. In 1960 they moved permanently to their lake home in Mathis, Texas. It is an honor to remember Charlie as a courageous soldier who risked his life for the American dream but it is also an even greater honor to recognize him as an honorable Texan, dedicated citizen, and a loving father, grandfather and husband.

There is no such thing as former Marine; once Marines leave the military they are still Marines in heart and soul and patriotic zeal. It is true that once a Marine always a Marine. Charlie was proud to be a Marine, so much so that as he said his final goodbyes to family members, his last words to his son-in-law, Maj. Joseph R. Ellis (retired USMC) was ``Semper Fi, my son, Semper Fi'' as he shook his fist with all the strength he could muster. There is nothing like a U.S. Marine. They are a breed of their own.

On September 28, 2010 PFC Milton Young, USMC was laid to rest with Full Marine Honor

Guard detail with a 21-gun salute and taps. I am honored to remember the life and memory of a Texas hero. He will forever remain a hero in the eyes of his family, his friends, his community, and his country. Semper Fi, Charlie Young. Semper Fi.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, America honors Hispanic Heritage this month. I would like to recognize some of Texas' heroes who served their country in body and deed, held up the torch of bravery and, in turn, were awarded Medals of Honor for their actions.

Born in San Marcos, Texas, Cleto Rodriguez enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1944, where he served as a Private in Company B, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division. On February 9, 1945 in Manila, while crossing a railroad station, Cleto's platoon was stopped by intense Japanese gunfire. Without being ordered to do so, Rodriguez and a fellow soldier, Private First Class John N. Reese, Jr., left the platoon and marched straight into the enemy volley. For two and a half hours, charged on conquest, Rodriguez and Reese killed over 82 Japanese soldiers and paved the way for an American victory at the railroad station that day. Sadly, Reese was killed in action defending his friends and country. For his ``determination to destroy the enemy and courage in the face of tremendous odds,'' Rodriguez was awarded the Medal of Honor. He became the first Mexican American GI to be given this award in the South Pacific.

Private First Class Silvestre Herrera, drafted to the U.S. Army in 1944, was a seasoned

veteran. He had been stationed on the front lines in Germany for several months. A part of the 36th ``Texas'' Division, Herrera had experienced the most violent fighting in the Central Europe campaign when the Allies closed in to deliver the finishing blow on Nazi Germany. As Americans advanced toward the border, German resistance mounted. That day, Herrera's division, the 142nd Regiment, neared the French-German border town of Mertzwiller. When orders were given to advance the town, Herrera, being a scout, was 400 yards ahead of his company. The regiment was suddenly overwhelmed by machine gun nest fire from the enemy. Armed with only a bayonet and an M1 hand rifle, Herrera single-handedly captured eight German soldiers and sent them to American lines. However, upon gearing up for a second attempt to end the gunfire, he stepped on an anti-personnel mine that blew off both his feet. Despite the intense pain and loss of blood, Herrera continued to fight and kill two more German soldiers. His presence enabled his comrades to lead a full frontal attack on the enemy position. For his heroism that day Silvestre Herrera was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

And last, but certainly not least--a hero from Congressional District 2. One of twelve children from a large Mexican American family, Lucian Adams was born in Port Arthur, Texas in 1922. The summer of 1944, Adams was stationed near the town of Saint-Die in the Mortagne forest of France. With supply lines cut off by the Germans, Adams was sent out as a scout for his company and alerted the commander of three enemy machine gun nests. He was given orders to ``go on out there and make a breakthrough to get those GIs.'' Armed with a borrowed Browning automatic rifle, Adams and his men started walking in a heavily wooded area of the forest. Having only walked 10 yards, enemy machine guns killed three men and wounded six others almost instantaneously. The company ran to take cover. However, Adams charged forward. He killed nine Germans, shot lobbying grenades, eliminated three enemy machine guns and forced two German infantrymen to surrender. In a matter of 10 minutes, Adams had successfully cleared the woods of enemy soldiers and reopened the severed supply line. Adams was dubbed ``The Texas Tornado'' by his company men and received the Medal of Honor in 1945.

The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest award for gallantry in action and is only given to the bravest of the brave. It is the American symbol of knighthood. Men like Rodriguez, Herrera and Adams deserve only the utmost respect from their countrymen. They are statues of strength--true visions of valor. With a thankful heart, I tip my hat to the Texas heroes who fought and are fighting for liberty. America salutes you.

And, that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, on October 10, 2010, the Republic of China will celebrate its 99th anniversary.

The government now in Taiwan was founded in mainland China before it was pushed out by a brutal, communist regime. The differences between the two governments today is stark. While Taiwan flourishes as a democracy marked by passionate elections, China suppresses all political opposition, torturing and imprisoning anyone who dares to disagree. And yet we let China into regional and world bodies but keep the ROC out.

For example, Taiwan is not a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization. That means that when world leaders get together to talk about aviation regulation, Taiwan and the 35 million people that fly in and out of it each year are completely unrepresented.

So I urge my colleagues, on this 99th anniversary of the Republic of China, to call on the leaders in Beijing to allow Taiwan to participate in ICAO and other key international organizations like it.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House considers S. 1132, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. This bill was introduced as the Senate companion to H.R. 3752, a bill of the same name introduced by Mr. Forbes of Virginia, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

S. 1132 makes improvements to the Federal law that authorizes law enforcement officers who are currently serving, who are retired, or who are separated in good standing to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country, notwithstanding State or local laws to the contrary.

This bill reduces the period an officer must serve before gaining eligibility to carry firearms as a retiree. Under current law, only officers with 15 years of service are ``qualified.''

This requirement prevents some officers who entered into law enforcement as a second career, for example, those that have served nobly in our military, from realizing the law's benefits. Today's legislation reduces the service requirement from 15 years to 10 years.

S. 1132 also clarifies firearms training requirements and makes them a lot more flexible. This bill enables a retiree to meet the mandatory firearms re-qualification standard, either through the agency he or she formerly served with, or through the State where he or she currently resides.

Most importantly, this legislation provides additional current and retired officers the means to defend themselves and their families from the hardened, often vengeful criminals they have previously arrested somewhere in this country.

The legislation is supported by law enforcement associations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Rifle Association.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee who has introduced a similar bill in the House.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is an honor to once again sponsor this Domestic Violence Awareness Month resolution.

I want to commend Judge Green for working with me on this issue. He did make one mistake, however. He said we have known each other for 20 years. I'm sorry; it has been 30 years since we

were young buck lawyers in the courthouse doing battle in Houston, Texas. So it has been a long time.

But he is correct, this is an issue that must continue to come to the awareness of the American people, that domestic violence is something that is, unfortunately, continuing in this country.

Thirty-five percent of the murder victims that were killed in 2008 were killed at the hands of people they knew. Intimate partners, 35 percent of them, murdered by people that were close to them.

In 2007, crimes by intimate partners accounted for 23 percent of all crimes against women.

In a single day in 2009, 65,000 victims were treated by domestic violence programs; but, due to lack of resources and funding, almost 10,000 were turned away because there were no resources to take care of them.

We have a growing need and presence of domestic violence shelters throughout the country, and they have fewer and fewer resources to take care of these women who seek refuge from someone that they knew who has been trying to assault them or has succeeded in assaulting them.

Congress must, of course, pass the reauthorization of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Victim service providers are on the front lines of defense against domestic violence, and this funding is vital to the treatment and reduction of domestic violence.

I spent all of my legal career before coming here as a prosecutor and a criminal court judge, so I was always in the courthouse doing criminal cases, and I saw the result of what happens when people in family situations commit crimes against other family members. It is something that has to cease in this country, and it is also something that we, as a community, need to be aware of. Unfortunately, many times courts don't take these cases seriously.

One of my favorite people is Yvette Cade from Baltimore, Maryland. Yvette Cade was a real person, still is a real person. And all these cases are about real people, Mr. Speaker.

On October 10, 2005, Yvette Cade's estranged husband--Roger Hargrave is his name. He and his wife were not getting along, so he sought her out. He went to the business where she worked, a video store, walked inside with a bottle full of gasoline, came up to her, and he poured that gasoline over her head and he set her on fire. Yvette Cade, a victim of domestic violence.

She survived that brutal assault, and, thanks to a passerby that saw this happen, the fire was put out in the parking lot. The judge involved in this case, Prince George's County Judge Richard Palumbo, had already lifted a protective order against Hargrave. If he had not lifted that protective order to keep him away from his estranged wife, she may not have had this brutal assault committed against her.

Now, Hargrave is serving life in prison for the assault, setting his wife on fire, but Mrs. Yvette Cade has third-degree burns over 60 percent of her body. She has had 19 surgeries. She survived this brutal attack. She is a remarkable woman. She has a spirit that it surprises me she has the spirit that she does.

But she is just one of thousands of people, Mr. Speaker, that are assaulted in the family, and it continues. We, in this society, must make sure that it is socially unacceptable to hurt somebody in the family.

My grandmother, who was the most influential person in my life, lived to be the age of 99. Judge Green would like this: She never forgave me for being a Republican. That is a different issue. But she always said, You never hurt somebody you claim you love. And that is a true statement, and it always has been. You never hurt somebody you claim you love. We need to send that message out throughout the Nation, especially in these family situations. And young males need to understand that if they get in a relationship with a young woman that they never hurt them if they claim they love them.

So it is an honor for me to support this. I honor also and recognize the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, all those wonderful organizations that are out there taking care mainly of women who find themselves in desperate situations because someone that supposedly loved them treated them so badly.

Mr. Speaker, my district is in Hurricane Alley. Since I've been elected to Congress, we have had five hurricanes: Katrina, Rita, Humbert, Gustav, and Ike. Hurricane season is about over in southeast Texas, but hurricane season is coming late this year to Washington.

The weather report for Washington, D.C., is just in. Gale force winds are expected in November. There is a hurricane coming, and it's going to hit D.C., and it's not going to have just one name. It's going to have the names of millions of Americans. The voice of citizens will be here and clear the air. We the people proclaim, hold elites and taxacrats accountable who have stopped being responsive to the will of the people.

And just as hurricane force winds hit Washington in 1814 to drive the British out of town, this American hurricane will drive the irresponsible arrogant from having the rule over the people. The American hurricane is on a direct path to the Potomac. And because of the abusive spending, borrowing, and taxing by government, the elites will have sown the wind, and now they're going to reap the whirlwind.

And that's just the way it is.