Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez is threatening to cut off oil supplies to the United States. Chavez doesn't like the fact America is friendly with Colombia. Since America is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil, Dictator Chavez thinks he has a say in American foreign policy.

American dependence on foreign oil poses a national security risk. It makes no sense at all. And why are we paying dictators and tyrants to supply us with energy? We have all of the energy we need right here at home, but we don't produce it. American-made energy provides jobs for Americans--good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that buy houses and cars and put kids through college.

But the offshore jobs and money are moving to Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil, and Venezuela.

The moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico threatens America's jobs and economy. It is a national security issue, and it gives a brutal buffoon dictator like Hugo Chavez dangerous influence.

End the illogical, ill-advised, ill-conceived offshore drilling moratorium. It's about time.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I heard from a Texan yesterday who was mad about why taxpayers are shelling out another $500 million for Pakistan. Americans are already giving Pakistan $1 billion a year. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said officials in Pakistan know where Osama bin Laden is hiding. Well, why don't they tell us where the terrorist of the desert, Osama bin Laden, is?

Isn't Pakistan supposed to be with us in this war in Afghanistan? And if they're not our ally, why are we giving them billions of taxpayer dollars? Now, in light of the illegal release of classified documents, Pakistan also appears to be taking our money and supporting our enemy, the Taliban. Maybe Pakistan isn't the loyal ally we pay them to be.

We should not be giving money we need here at home to countries that are friends in public and thieves behind closed doors. As my colleague Louie Gohmert says, ``We don't have to pay these people to hate us. They will do it for free.''

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work the gentleman, Mr. Smith, has done on human trafficking throughout his career here in Congress to make the Congress and the American people aware of this horrible tragedy that's taking place throughout the world. And I especially appreciate his work on this legislation, International Megan's Law.

Mr. Speaker, slavery is alive and, unfortunately, doing very well in this world today. We see it in the form of human trafficking, sex trafficking, slavery of children who are taken from different parts of the world by these slave traders and, for money, they exploit these children, and they make money because there are consumers that want to abuse children.

Unfortunately, 25 percent of the consumers who use sex trade victims are from the United States. They leave this country. They go to foreign countries. They find some child, and they abuse that child, and they pay some slave trader for that service. A million people a year are involved as victims of human trafficking. Fifty percent of them are children. Most of them are under the age of 18. It is the scourge that is taking place in our world today. And it's about time we let the world know about it. And it's about time we do something about it.

I am founder and cochair, along with my friend Mr. Costa from California, of the Victims Rights Caucus. Children that are exploited, that are taken and they are used for sex trafficking, first of all are not criminals. They are victims of criminal conduct. The criminals are the slave traders and the criminals are those who pay to exploit those children.

It's important that we first take care and find out who those victims are. We should treat them as victims, those children that have been exploited. The second thing we do, we find out who those slave traders are and we put them in jails throughout the world. Lock them up. That's where they belong, no matter where they do their dirty deeds. And the third thing is those consumers, those who pay to exploit children, some of those 25 percent from the United States, we not only lock them up, we let people know who they are. We publish their names, we put their photographs on the Internet, we let people know who these individuals are.

This legislation goes a long way in helping the children. So when some predator gets out of our penitentiary for molesting a kid and wants to leave the country to continue their evil ways, they've got to tell us about it so we can tell that other country, Watch out, this this guy's coming to your country. And so that country can be on notice, so we can be on notice, so we can keep up with these people.

Based on my experience as a judge in Texas for over 20 years, unfortunately most of these child molesters, when they leave the penitentiary, they do it again, and they continue those devilish ways. And it's important we know who they are. This legislation is excellent. I support it.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 470--H. Res. 1556, 471--H. Res. 5730, and 472--H. Res. 1366, I was unable to vote today, since I was at the White House meeting with the President. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 1556, ``yes'' on H. Res. 5730, and ``yes'' on H. Res. 1366.

Mr. Speaker, private industry is creating solutions to protect the Gulf of Mexico because the government really doesn't create anything. Government just stops things from being created like jobs.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell Oil have announced a new coordinated plan. They're building a new emergency oil spill containment system to protect the Gulf of Mexico. Their deepwater rapid response system will capture and contain oil in a blowout emergency. It will be engineered to be used in underwater depths of up to 10,000 feet and under different weather conditions as well. The initial capacity will contain 100,000 barrels of oil a day.

These oil industry leaders have committed $1 billion to the initial cost. Engineering, procurement, and construction will begin immediately. ExxonMobil has taken the lead on behalf of the other companies. This is great news for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. American private industry is taking the lead.

The administration needs to end the moratorium on drilling and get out of the way and quit killing jobs in the Gulf of Mexico.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, seven more countries now join Mexico and the United States to sue the State of Arizona. They are Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Guatemala. Not exactly all champions of human or civil rights.

They say their illegals in Arizona might be mistreated if Arizona enforces Federal law. But here's the real kicker: our own State Department has sided with these other nations against the American people. It has filed a declaration in the lawsuit saying the Arizona law is causing an international incident and hurting foreign policy. Now it's nine countries versus Arizona.

The nerve of our government to side with foreign powers and sue American people. Foreign countries have no business meddling in and dictating American national security. Our government is on the wrong side. It should support and defend the Constitution and the people of Arizona. It should not be siding with nations that have illegals in our country.

It's nine countries versus Arizona. I cast my lot with the people of Arizona.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the band continues to play the same song, third or fourth verse, and that is the song of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Now, is there anyone in the House of Representatives, Democratic, Republican, who believes that Iran has stopped its development of nuclear weapons? I think not. Is there anyone in this world who thinks that Iran has stopped its development of nuclear weapons? I think not.

You know, they used the philosophy and the politics of delay, of promise, of hope to tell the world that really they are not really interested in nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the band continues to play the song of nuclear weapons coming from the desert and the tiny tyrant of the desert, Ahmadinejad.

He is bent on the destruction of, first, Israel and then the West, and he is primarily concerned right now with destroying opposition in his own country. After all, he is an illegitimate officeholder and President of Iran. He rigged the elections, and so he took control. He killed his own people in the streets, and, Mr. Speaker, he is still at war with the Iranian people, those good folks in Iran who want to control their destiny and don't want it controlled by their dictator, the little tyrant in the desert.

We as a Nation and as a world need to support the people of Iran to change their regime. Our quarrel is not with the people of Iran. Our quarrel is with the tiny tyrant in the desert who wants the nuclear destruction of Israel and the West.

And he has continued his attack on his own people in Camp Ashraf. Those Iranian folks that are in Camp Ashraf in Iraq that we as a Nation have promised to protect but because of our agreement with the Iraqi Government, Camp Grizzly, that organization or that camp we have in Iraq to protect the Iranians in Camp Ashraf, we have abandoned that Camp Grizzly. The United Nations assistance team has also left.

So who is in charge of protecting the Iranians in Iraq? Certainly not the Iranian Government. They want them destroyed. After all, it was about a year ago when they encouraged the Iraqi Government to go into Camp Ashraf and they did. They killed 11 Iranians; 500 others were wounded. And now we hear media talk that the Iranian Government is working with the Iraqi Government to present warrants of arrest so the Iraqi Government will go back into Camp Ashraf and arrest those pro- democracy Iranians that want to remove Ahmadinejad. We cannot allow that to happen. We must protect the people, the citizens of Camp Ashraf. It is our obligation, our moral duty as a Nation and as a world to make sure those dissidents remain protected and free.

It is important to the world that we as a Nation understand the importance of Israel as our ally. Israel is surrounded by its enemies; it's surrounded by Hamas to the south, Hezbollah to the north. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? Iran is supplying weapons and money to Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south. You see, the little rogue dictator, the tiny tyrant of the desert, Ahmadinejad, is trying to have insurrection in Israel as well as in his own country.

So, Mr. Speaker, the great hope for Iran, the great hope for the world is a regime change in Iran. And we need to be vigilant and supportive and watchful and make sure that we help in any way we can, at least verbally and politically, to support the good people of Iran to take control of their own country, to get rid of this illegitimate dictator that's trying to destroy not only Israel and the West, but his own country for some unfortunate reason.

Mr. Speaker, regime change is the answer. A nuclear Iran is not a nuclear option.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the administration says they will be sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border region on August 1. But they're not going to the actual border. They'll be far behind the lines, guarding computers. And the National Guard will be unarmed while they are guarding the computers.

The Border Patrol welcomes the National Guard at the border. They appreciate the help. But the Border Patrol agents made it real clear they need armed National Guard to help them stop the criminal cartels at the border. Further, the Border Patrol will need to guard the National Guard. Now, how does that make sense?

Mr. Speaker, we have 15 million unemployed Americans already. We should hire some of those 15 million unemployed to do the technical work behind the lines, and the National Guard should be armed and on the front lines of the border doing what they're trained to do: Protect the country. We need the National Guard with boots on the ground on the border, not rebooting computers somewhere behind the border.

And that's just the way it is.

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

The use of illegal cell phones by prisoners is on the rise. In California, for example, news stories report that the number of cell phones confiscated in prisons doubled from 2007 to 2008. In 2008, over 2,800 cell phones were found in California, but more than 2,800 were found just in the first 6 months of 2009. The Alabama Department of Corrections found more than 3,000 cell phones in 2009. In fact, there were more cell phones than any other type of contraband found in all of Alabama prisons.

Other State prison systems are experiencing the same increase in the number of contraband cell phones. As a result, many States are considering legislation that specifically prohibits prisoners from possessing cell phones in State prisons.

S. 1749 takes a step in the same direction at the Federal level. S. 1749, the Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010, does two things. First, the bill makes it a crime for Federal prisoners to possess cell phones. Second, the bill directs the GAO to study the cost and use of landlines and smuggled cell phones in Federal and selected State prisons and jails.

This legislation is timely. Inmates use smuggled cell phones to coordinate drug deals on the outside, also, gang violence and other crimes, all committed outside the prison by use of smuggled cell phones to coordinate this activity that are used in the prison system.

Last year, an inmate in Maryland was accused of using a cell phone to arrange a murder of a witness who had testified against him at a trial. And in 2008, a condemned murderer on death row in my home State of Texas used a smuggled cell phone to threaten a State senator. That State senator happened to be the chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee in the State senate. Since that time, at least nine death row inmates in Texas were found to be in possession of contraband cell phones.

I don't personally think that inmates should have such open access to cell phones at all in State prisons.

To get more data on this issue, S. 1749 directs the General Accountability Office, or the GAO, to study the costs and revenues associated with the operation of landline telephones in the prison system. The study will examine select State and Federal efforts to prevent the smuggling of cell phones and other wireless devices into prisons, including efforts made to minimize trafficking of cell phones by prison guards, who are the number one source of getting cell phones in the penitentiary, and also other officials.

News stories report that prison guards are a major means in which cell phones are smuggled into prison, and prisoners pay anywhere from $300 for a normal cell phone and up to $1,000 for the smartphone. A prison guard in California made $100,000 just dealing in cell phones in the penitentiary.

It's my hope and expectation that the GAO study will help Congress and the States in the effort to combat the smuggling of cell phones into penitentiaries.

I support S. 1749. I'm also a cosponsor of another piece of legislation dealing with this specific issue, H.R. 560, the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009. This was introduced by my colleague from the Woodlands, Texas, area, Kevin Brady. This bill would allow the State or the Federal Bureau of Prisons to petition the FCC to permit them to use devices that jam cell phone signals within the prison boundary. Prisoners would then have no use for a smuggled cell phone as they would not work within the prison confinement. Along with making cell phone possession a crime, I believe Congress should also look at Mr. Brady's bill, H.R. 560, as a way to prevent the use of cell phones in the penitentiary.

I urge all Members to support S. 1749.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, children are our greatest resource in this country. As citizens, as legislators, as parents and grandparents, it's our job to keep them safe, to be vigilant about protecting these children from those who wish to do them harm.

The Child Protection Improvements Act of 2010 goes a long way toward ensuring that our children are not harmed by those that they are told to trust. Specifically, this bill extends the Child Safety Pilot Program which provides a background check for volunteer organizations that work with children. The bill also creates a mechanism to replace the pilot program with a permanent background check system that will enroll any organization using the Child Safety Pilot Program.

Originally created in 2003 under the PROTECT Act, the Child Safety Pilot Program has been a proven and effective resource for protecting America's children. Of almost 90,000 background checks performed through the pilot program, 6 percent of volunteer applicants were found to have a criminal history of some concern. These included serious offenses such as sexual abuse of minors, assault, child cruelty, drug offenses, and even homicide.

Since inception of the Child Safety Pilot Program, over 42 percent of those with criminal histories had convictions in a State other than the State in which they were applying to volunteer. If the volunteer group had performed a search of only State records, many relevant criminal convictions would not have been identified. Access to the national criminal database is crucial to ensuring thorough background checks.

During a study of over 1,600 applicants, even though volunteers knew that they would be subjected to a background check, 50 percent or more of them lied on their applications about having a criminal history and, in fact, did have a record that contained criterion offenses. Of the applicants with criminal records, 22 percent had a different name reflected on their record than the one used when they had to volunteer.

Through the pilot program, nonprofit organizations that provide youth-focused care may request criminal history background checks from the FBI on applicants for volunteer or employee positions that entail working with children. The bill builds on the pilot program and would allow other child-serving organizations to better screen volunteers or employees.

Volunteer and other child-serving organizations across the country are working hard to provide safe learning and growing environments for our children. That means hiring professional and responsible employees without a criminal history. H.R. 1469 provides a permanent program that will help these groups do just that.

H.R. 1469 is supported by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; the YMCA; the Salvation Army; Big Brothers, Big Sisters of America; and Volunteers of America, as well as many other important organizations.

Many Members of this body are parents and grandparents first and Members of Congress second, and this legislation is critical to keeping America's children safe from predators and other criminals. If one less child becomes a victim of crime because of this program, then we have succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, with all the sophisticated information we have, if we are able to find out the criminal history of individuals, this act will allow us to do so.

I urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Conyers and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for sponsoring this legislation and also want to thank Mr. Schiff for not just this piece of legislation but other pieces of legislation in his relentless effort as a Member of Congress to make sure that the greatest resource in our country, children, are protected from child predators.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department is suing Arizona for enforcing Federal laws that are already on the books. Other States and counties already have enforcement laws like Arizona's.

Prince William County in Virginia has laws almost identical to the new Arizona Senate Bill 1070 enforcement law. Police are allowed to check legal status at any time. Police are also required to check immigration status if anyone is arrested for anything, including DUI or public drunkenness.

According to Corey Stewart, the county board chairman, there has been a 37 percent drop in violent crime in the first 2 years of enforcement of this law. Overall, crime in Prince William County, Virginia, is at a 15-year low. Criminal aliens have fled that part of Virginia and gone somewhere elsewhere the laws are not enforced. Stewart says there has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling.

Also, the State of Rhode Island enforces Federal immigration law by executive order, like the sanctuary cities, only in reverse. The Governor said his law enforcement officers must enforce this Federal law.

There are more States that follow suit. In Missouri, if police want to see your ID papers to prove legal status, they are free to ask. Sanctuary cities are illegal in Missouri and they enforce the E-Verify system for employers. That's the free system set up by the Federal Government where all employers can check someone's immigration status. In Missouri, you have to be legal to get a driver's license and there is no in-State tuition for illegals at State junior colleges.

So why the double standard at the Justice Department and suing Arizona? Why are the Feds picking on Arizona and not these other States?

On the other hand, there are two laws that expressly forbid States from having sanctuary cities. The laws are found in title 8, section 1373 and title 8, section 1644 of the United States code.

These statutes say cities may not have policy that prohibits peace officers from communicating with the Federal Government about a person's immigration status. But there are cities across the country with policies banning their police from calling the Federal Government to report even criminal illegals.

In San Francisco, one recent case turned tragic. In 2008, there were three members of a family that were gunned down by Salvadoran illegals. Edwin Ramos is a member of the MS-13 narcoterrorist gang, and he is on trial for gunning down one of the members of this family. Two young sons of that family were also gunned down, Matthew and Michael were their names.

They were all in a car driving home from a family barbecue after church. They were not gang members, they were just citizens. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Ramos, their accused killer, had been previously arrested three times.

San Francisco police knew he was an illegal alien MS-13 gang member. The San Francisco Chronicle reported after the shooting that the city's sanctuary policy was the reason authorities never called the Federal Government. I repeat. The newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, reported after the shooting that the city's sanctuary policy was the reason the authorities did not call the Feds.

Instead of being detained and deported, gang member Edwin Ramos was released, and he killed a father and the two young brothers because of the Federal Government's tolerance to sanctuary cities. So the blood is on the hands of those who support the concept of sanctuary cities. There was even an eyewitness to the shooting, and Tony's youngest son, who survived the hail of bullets, was that witness.

Is the Justice Department suing San Francisco to stop this sort of irresponsible action? No, of course not.

Instead, the Justice Department is using taxpayer dollars to sue the State of Arizona for enforcing Federal laws. Arizona is not creating any new laws, they are merely enforcing the Federal law under concurrent jurisdiction.

The sanctuary cities pose a greater danger to American cities because they give a sanctuary to all illegals. They shield criminal aliens from being detained and deported by the Federal Government, and sanctuary cities, in my opinion, operate in violation of the Federal Government law prohibiting such. But because of politics, the administration is suing Arizona for upholding the law and refuses to sue sanctuary cities for violating Federal law.

We hear the rhetoric that illegals do jobs Americans won't do. Now we have an actual situation where Arizona is getting sued for doing a job the American government won't do--protecting the security of the country and enforcing the law.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the Sonoran Pronghorn antelope is in danger of extinction, so government ``envirocrats'' have prohibited Border Patrol from entering some wildlife areas on the range where the antelope play in Arizona.

The antelope protectors have stopped construction of seven Border Patrol observation towers they feel are too intrusive for the antelope. Never mind the Border Patrol can protect the antelope and secure the border as well.

And the ``envirocrats'' haven't gotten the word out to the illegals. Drug cartels and human traffickers and thousands of illegals trample through the home on the range running roughshod over the wildlife refuge every day. These trespassers leave trash and vehicles on the preserve. The drug cartels are even erecting cell phone tower stations.

The Buenos Aires refuge, also in Arizona, is closed, being too dangerous for Americans to enter because it, too, has become a sanctuary for drug cartels and traffickers.

Prohibiting the Border Patrol from entering these areas is not helping the wildlife but endangering these areas more. You see, the illegals don't care about the antelope and its home on the range.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it's summertime, and families are having their summer vacations. They're taking their kids throughout the fruited plain in the United States to visit our historical Nation. But I bring you sad news. Our Federal Government has warned Americans that there are parts of America that they should not travel to. It is too dangerous to travel in parts of America because it's just not safe.

Here is an example. This sign is erected on Interstate 8 in Arizona. Interstate 8 is an east to west Interstate, highly traveled. It's anywhere from 30 to 100 miles north of the Mexican border, and about 30 or 60 miles south of Phoenix. In a section of 60 miles there are 12 of these signs posted. And here is what they say: ``Danger--Public Warning--Travel Not Recommended.''

What does that mean? It means the Federal Government is telling Americans you can't travel America, it's just too dangerous. We, the Federal Government, we can't protect you. Don't travel around here. And here are some of the comments on this sign. The first one says, ``Active drug and human smuggling area.'' What does that mean? That means the drug cartels and the coyotes, those human smugglers, are sneaking their way across the border because it's porous in Arizona, as well as my home State of Texas, and they're bringing in drugs and they're bringing in people, and it's not safe because they don't do that in a very kind and gentle way, the smuggling operation.

It goes further. Number two: ``Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.'' Oh, that sounds serious. You mean we can't take the kids down Interstate 8 because they've got the drug cartels and their fast vehicles bringing drugs? Yeah, the Federal Government, the big Federal Government says we can't protect you. Don't come here.

Number three on this sign, put up by the Bureau of Land Management: ``Stay away from trash, clothing, backpacks, and abandoned vehicles.'' You see, when the coyotes bring the people in and the cartels bring in their drugs, they abandon much of their stuff that they bring in. They just throw it down, you know, on our interstates. They also throw it in some of our refuges. And it's just stay away from that because we don't know what's in all that property.

The next one on here, No. 4, if you see suspicious activity, don't confront. Call 9/11.

I can tell you one thing: you pick up that phone and you call 9/11, you're not going to get the Federal Government to answer that phone because, you see, when you call 9/11, it's always some local, like the sheriffs of Arizona will call. What are they supposed to do, because the Federal Government doesn't

want them enforcing immigration and smuggling laws. Are they going to call ICE to come out there? The Federal Government's already said they can't protect you. So why call 9/11? That's a useless call.

And the last one it says: the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, encourages visitors to use public lands north of Interstate 8 because, see, we can't protect you as the Federal Government in the land south of Interstate 8 that goes all the way to Mexico. Has the Federal Government ceded that land to Mexico, the drug dealers, and the human coyotes? Kind of sounds like it to me.

And now what is the Federal Government's response besides putting up a bunch of these signs saying, Don't travel America; don't take your kids across this country because it's not safe. We can't protect you. The Federal Government has decided to send its lawyers to the courthouse and sue the State of Arizona so they won't enforce and protect their own law.

The Federal Government ought to spend less time sending lawyers to the courthouse and spend a little more time sending the National Guard down to the border to keep people from coming into this country without permission. After all, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect us and let us travel all of our interstate highways, even Interstate 8 in Arizona.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are opposed to the administration's ban on deepwater drilling. Almost three-quarters of American people, 73 percent, say the ban is not necessary. But in spite of the will of most Americans, in spite of two court rulings that say that the moratorium is arbitrary, capricious, and punitive, the administration is determined to kill jobs in the deepwater industry.

You just can't hit the pause button on the gulf coast economy. The President's moratorium on drilling is destroying lives, and good people are being put out of work on purpose by this administration. These aren't statistics. These are real people, hardworking people. How do they pay their mortgage and buy their groceries and put gasoline in their car?

On Friday, one of the world's biggest drilling companies had to move another deepwater rig to the Middle East and out of the Gulf of Mexico because of this moratorium. All of the good-paying jobs are going with it.

Mr. Speaker, the moratorium on drilling is the second disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and it's brought to us by this administration.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it's with great pride but a heavy heart that I honor a fallen son of Texas tonight, a United States Army soldier from my Second Congressional District.

Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth gave his life fighting terrorists on a battlefield in a far, faraway, desolate land near Kandahar in Afghanistan on July 10, 2010. He died from injuries caused by an IED, the weapon of terrorists, those cowards that hide in their holes in the rugged deserts and come out like rats at night and plant roadside bombs to kill Americans, women, and children.

This is Jesse Ainsworth. He was 24 years of age. He was an American warrior, and he was born in Texas and Jesse was an all American boy. He loved to hunt and fish in the woods near his home in Dayton, Texas. And after attending Dayton High School, he joined the United States Army.

He was a team leader with the 1st Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division out of Ft. Drum. Jesse served two combat tours in Iraq before deploying to Afghanistan. And, Madam Speaker, he re-enlisted after his second tour of duty in Iraq and then that is why he went to Afghanistan.

Yesterday, I talked to Jesse's mother, Margeret Hutchins, and she said a lot about her son. They live in a little small community called Kenefic, just outside of Dayton.

Jesse was Margeret's only son. And Margeret said Jesse was her hero. She said she used to pick him up when he was a little kid from kindergarten, and every Friday they'd go to Wal-Mart and buy some toy for him. She said ever since Jesse was an itty bitty fellow he wanted to be a soldier in the United States Army.

And the last time she talked to him, Jesse said he was setting up camp out in the middle of no place in the middle of the desert. And he asked his mother to send him, in the next care package, a Big Red soft drink and some Copenhagen chewing tobacco in that care package. Jesse was all Texas.

Jesse loved the Army, he loved his country, and he loved being a soldier. He was doing what he wanted to do. He was an Army man.

All of the flags in the small town of Dayton, Texas, are flying at half mast this week. There are signs all over this town of just 5,000, handmade signs, electronic signs throughout the community honoring Jesse.

The services will be held on Saturday at the Dayton Community Center, and the whole town will turn out to honor their native son and honor his family.

Jesse is survived by his wife, Sarah; their 6-month old daughter, Lanna Rose; and his daughter, Lexie, who is three; Jesse's mother, Margeret; and stepfather, Wesley; and Jesse's two sisters, Rebecca and Shane.

Jesse will then be buried at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Houston, Texas.

All of his fellow soldiers gave some, Madam Speaker, but Jesse Ainsworth gave all in his defense for freedom.

Our brave troopers go to war defending freedom and liberty in faraway lands. In the dark, cold desert night and the parched, insufferable desert heat, these brave warriors pay with their blood and sacrifice for freedom and liberty and for America.

They sanctify with their blood lands they have never seen, and they fight for people they do not know.

Madam Speaker, I have a recent photograph of Jesse. Here he is in Afghanistan with an Afghan farmer. You see, that's what our American troops are doing. They are the greatest ambassadors for freedom and liberty and the American way in the world. And here they are, here Jesse is with a person in Afghanistan, a nation that Jesse and his fellow troopers are liberating.

Patrick Henry once said, ``The battle, sir, is not to the strong, it is to the vigilant, to the active, to the brave.''

Madam Speaker, those words still ring true today, and our American soldiers carry those values into battle because they are ``Army Strong.'' Jesse Ainsworth was such a soldier and a family man. He was that hero who has given his life to something bigger than himself.

So when we gather Saturday to honor this fallen American, Jesse's flag-draped coffin will be carried by the Honor Guard. The old war horses of the Patriot Guard, those motorcycle riders made primarily of Vietnam veterans, they will stand vigil over this beloved family and over their sacred fallen brother carrying American flags.

The rifles will fire the 21-gun salute, and the bugle will sound taps for the last time as the name of Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth is placed forever on the hallowed roles of those who have given their lives defending American freedom and liberty. He will be surrounded by his family for the last time, and the war will be over for Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth. But the war will never end for his family.

It has been said what we have done for ourselves dies with us. What we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.

Staff Sergeant Jesse Ainsworth is that rare breed, that American breed that lived and died for something bigger than himself. And today we honor his life and his sacrifice.

And that's just the way it is.