Floor Statements

Day three, Washington under siege--3 days ago, a Federal judge struck down D.C.'s unconstitutional ban on the right to bear arms. D.C. went from having the most restrictive gun laws in the country to having virtually no restrictions on carrying a handgun in public.

Did gun-toting tourists commence to shoot-outs? Did residents cower in their homes? Did vigilante posses maraud about the city? Did politicians revert to dueling at 10 paces? No, none of these things are happening. History will show the streets are safer today as more law- abiding residents and visitors are armed.

Contrary to apocryphal warnings from D.C. leaders, no one is panicked--except for the city's leaders. Why are the city's leaders apoplectic, and why are they asking for an immediate stay from the judge's ruling? Because the emperor has no clothes and all of the lies about gun control are being exposed right here in the District of Columbia on day three.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 105. Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives the sole power to declare war to Congress, not the President.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating as we speak. ISIS, a group of violent fundamentalist Islamic thugs, is terrorizing the people of Iraq and destroying the ancient culture of Mosul.

Some have called for the U.S. to interfere once again, but if we are to do so and to send our brave men and women into harm's way overseas, we must honor the Constitution. Congress must authorize any such military action. It would be illegal for the President to do so alone.

Any future military action in Iraq would constitute a new war, with new enemies--ISIS--and would require a new congressional authorization. The President cannot use the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq to justify any new action.

It is important for those who are quick to rush into another war to remember that wars often have unintended consequences. Iraq is a prime example.

In a recent article in The Telegraph, historian Dr. Tim Stanley pointed out that prior to the 2003 Iraq war, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Today, there are only 400,000.

As Dr. Stanley writes, ``The lesson is: `either leave other countries alone or, if you must intervene, do so with consistency and resilience.' The consequences of going in, messing things up, and then quitting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind.''

If we are going to go to war, we must follow the Constitution, have Congress declare it, and fight to win. Anything else is illegal, unconstitutional, and likely to lead to unintended, horrific consequences. That is why I support H. Con. Res. 105, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the D.C. handgun ban, as well as the unconstitutional gunlock provision, it is still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms.

Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.

Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats in the District continue to interfere with the D.C. residents' rights to self- defense.

As The Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay a fee for re-registration, go to police headquarters, and submit to invasive fingerprinting and photographing.

This is pure harassment. Why would the D.C. government want to punish and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves?

As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They will get guns any way they can. Does anyone actually believe that strict gun controls laws will prevent criminals from getting guns?

Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

As John Lott, author of ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' says:

The District of Columbia should have learned the problems

with gun control the hard way. There is only 1 year after

D.C.'s handgun ban went into effect in 1977 where its murder

rate was as low as it was prior to the ban. The D.C. murder

rate rose dramatically, relative to other cities after the

ban, with its murder rate ranking either number one or number

two among the 50 most populous U.S. cities for half the time

the ban was in effect and always in the top two-thirds.

However, as soon as the ban and, more importantly, the

gunlock regulations were struck down in 2008, the murder rate

fell, dropping by 50 percent over the next 4 years. Indeed,

every place in the world that has banned guns has seen an

increase in murder rates.

This experience can be seen worldwide. Island nations supposedly present ideal environments for gun control because it is relatively easy for them to control their borders, but countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica have experienced large increases in murder and violent crime after gun bans.

For example, after handguns were banned in 1997, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005.

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the other side of the aisle, when we talk about voting rights, they are very opposed to voter ID and to photograph IDs for voting. I think they would be very opposed to fingerprinting and photographing in order to exercise that basic fundamental right to vote, which is what they often say.

Well, I would remind them that the Second Amendment says a right to bear arms is a basic right. If they argue that fingerprinting and photographing is invasive and disproportionately disenfranchises minorities from that basic right to vote, how can they not argue the same thing about the basic right to own and bear guns?

In closing, my amendment states that none of the funds made available in this bill to the District of Columbia will be used by the D.C. government to prohibit the activity of people in possessing, acquiring, using, selling, or transporting firearms.

It defunds four laws passed in the wake of Heller that constitute an attempt by the D.C. government to overrule and ignore the Heller decision. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law- abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the unconstitutional D.C. handgun ban, it is still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms. Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.

Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats of the District continue to interfere with the District's residents' right to self-defense.

As the Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay for reregistration, go to police headquarters and submit to invasive photographing and fingerprinting. This is pure harassment.

Why would the D.C. government want to punish and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves from criminals? As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws. They will get the guns any way they can.

Does anyone actually believe that strict gun control laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chair, I certainly disagree with the gentleman's points there.

First of all, Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate and exercise over all matters in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia is not already familiar with Federal laws, then I question whether he should be a law enforcement officer.

But most of all, I would make the point that the underlying bill already contains language that is virtually identical in form to the amendment that I have offered. For instance, section 809 states that ``none of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act.''

There are multiple examples in the underlying bill where the structure of those portions of the bill are identical to my amendment and require knowledge of law.

Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Offered By: Mr. Massie

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick of being spied on. Our Founding Fathers wrote an important provision into the Bill of Rights--the Fourth Amendment--and that requires probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on any American.

During the debate on the USA FREEDOM Act, we knew that more work was needed to ensure Americans' privacy rights are protected. That is why our bipartisan group has joined together to shut surveillance backdoors that do not meet the expectations of our constituents or the standards required by the Constitution.

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chair, I will submit for the Record the letter from the Director of National Intelligence that my colleague from California referred to.

Director of National Intelligence,

Washington, DC, Mar. 28, 2014.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide

Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from

2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to

query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign

Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person

identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been

conducted for the communications of specific Americans.

As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of

Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to

Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21.

2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers,

of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign

intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably

believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section

702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to

minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as

consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you

know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to

restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately

not adopted.

For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact

Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs, at

(703) 275-2474.

Sincerely,

James R. Clapper.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is correct. This was in the original FREEDOM Act, and it was stripped out in his committee. That is why many of the Members who originally sponsored the FREEDOM Act did not, in fact, vote for the final version, and I would argue that it was not legislated.

The final version of the FREEDOM Act was done behind closed doors, and when it came to this floor, we would have loved to have offered amendments, but the rules were written such that we could not amend it.

Legislators from 435 districts had no say in the final bill, and that is why we are here tonight with this amendment, to reinsert this provision which over 150 Members of this body sponsored.

At this point, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas is correct. The American people can be kept safe, and we can follow the Constitution. We don't have to disregard it, and that is what this amendment would allow us to do, to keep the American people safe while protecting their civil liberties.

There are two provisions here, and they both close backdoors. One backdoor currently allows, without probable cause or a warrant, for the NSA to query a database of American persons' information. This is wrong. They should have a warrant.

The other part of this amendment would prevent money from being spent to fund companies to put backdoors into products. When the government causes these companies to intentionally make defects in their products, they make Americans less safe. They make Americans' data less safe, and they compromise the quality of American goods overseas.

Ultimately, this is about the Constitution, and if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe that it is still valid, if you think we can honor the Fourth Amendment and that we can still keep people safe, then I urge you to vote for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, officials in my home State of Kentucky were recently forced to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to compel the DEA to release industrial hemp seeds intended for a university research pilot program. What a waste of time, money, and the court system's limited resources.

States can't launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes the seeds before they reach their destination. And although the DEA did recently agree to release the seeds, they still insist that they have the authority to regulate industrial hemp--which was clearly conveyed to the States in the farm bill.

Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are somehow passing across our borders every week, yet the DEA thinks that seizing hemp seeds, industrial hemp seeds, is a worthwhile use of its time and resources? I say it is not.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am not here to talk about brownies and biscuits. I am here to talk about a serious medical issue, cannabidiol, the CBD oil that comes from the cannabis plant. It is very low in THC and is nonpsychoactive. Research has shown very promising results in children with epilepsy, autism, and other neurological disorders. CBD oil is also showing promising results in adults with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and PTSD.

We need to remove the roadblocks to these potential medical breakthroughs. This amendment would do that. The Federal Government should not countermand State law. In this case, the absurd result of that is that medical discoveries are being blocked.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with four of my colleagues to offer a bipartisan amendment that simply requires the DEA to comply with Federal law.

Despite clear language in the recently passed farm bill that specifically allows State agricultural agencies and universities to grow industrial hemp for research, the DEA decided to ignore the plain text of a Federal statute.

Officials in my home State of Kentucky were recently forced to file a lawsuit in Federal court to compel the DEA to release industrial hemp seeds intended for a university research pilot program. What a waste of time, money, and the court system's limited resources.

States cannot launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes the seeds before they reach their destination, and although the DEA did recently agree to release the seeds, my amendment ensures that this type of DEA action won't happen again.

If this were simply about seeds, I wouldn't be here. We have got that resolved, but there are further issues. There are more issues.

For instance, the DEA has been very ambiguous on whether they are going to assert authority to say that hemp can't be grown on private property. Listen, where else are you going to grow it? It is not like the government has farms.

The farm bill is clear on this language. The farm bill says that the State authorities shall register these sites, not the DEA; yet the DEA refuses to acknowledge that.

Furthermore, with regard to the seeds, the DEA requires--and this I find ridiculous--that the seeds--and these are industrial hemp seeds with no active THC--must be kept under lock and key, with only three keys available.

The way we have got these stored in Kentucky now is you put your handprint on the door and you can get into these hemp seeds. You want to know how ridiculous that is?

By the end of this growing season, we are going to have thousands of pounds of hemp seeds, not 250 pounds of hemp seeds. The question is: What is the DEA going to do going forward?

We just want them to simply obey the law. The fact is that growing hemp for research purposes has always been legal. So why hasn't it been done? Because it required interfacing with the DEA, and the DEA purposely used regulations to stop any of this research.

The farm bill that I cosponsored was to clear the way for hemp industrial research, not to perpetuate a broken

process where the DEA obfuscates and delays, but to give that freedom to State and local governments.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

That is not my amendment that you just read.

The Clerk read it, but if you may, it says:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in

contravention of section 7606 (``Legitimacy of Industrial

Hemp Research'') of the Agricultural Act of 2014 by the

Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

My amendment at the desk says nothing about seeds.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Yes. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

I hope the chairman will vote for my amendment. Basically, it just says that we are going to enforce the farm bill, the language of the farm bill, and the farm bill is very clear in its language. It says no other Federal law withstanding.

Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are somehow passing our borders every week? Yet the DEA thinks that seizing industrial hemp seeds in Kentucky is worthwhile use of its time and resources.

Furthermore, what are they going to do this fall when we harvest the hemp seeds?

There is no import-export there. These are Kentucky hemp seeds once they are grown in Kentucky. There is no Federal nexus this fall, so I hope that the farm bill and the language in the farm bill will be honored. We voted for it. It was signed by the President.

Our amendment is simple. It states that no funds may be used by the Department of Justice or Drug Enforcement Administration to violate the clear language of the farm bill, which says: States are allowed to grow and cultivate industrial hemp if the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for the purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research.

The DEA is not above Congress. It is not above the law. Executive branch agencies like the DEA must follow the laws passed by the legislative branch.

Please join us in support of this commonsense, reasonable amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I want to briefly tell you about a young boy who grew up in modest surroundings in rural Kentucky.

Although he had no money, he was inspired to invent. So he collected junk to build his inventions--broken clocks, radios, vacuum cleaners. Who knows, maybe one day he could assemble this junk into an invention that would allow him to pull himself out of his humdrum environment.

He was inspired to invent by stories of Edison, Ford, and Tesla. In the seventh grade, he invented this robot arm that you see here, which won him a prize at the science fair. He even invented a flower pot that would water itself for his grandmother.

He went on to college, where he met other inventors, inspired, again, not just by creativity but by the fact that they can make an honest living by improving the lives of others.

One of his inventor friends invented a robot that vacuums floors for millions of people now. This boy went on to invent a touch interface for computers, obtain 29 patents, raise venture capital, and create dozen of jobs.

His story is only possible in America, where our robust intellectual property system and judicial system work together to protect the property rights of inventors.

Knowing this and relying on this, many inventors dedicate their entire lives to inventing things that will improve and extend the lives of others.

Today's patent reform bill is a serious threat to American inventors. That is why inventors are urging us not to pass this bill today. It will extinguish creativity and invention in America.

Recklessly weakening the patent system, as this bill does, will deprive inventors of income and a livelihood. They will pursue other careers. As the role models for young inventors quietly fade into history, fewer young students will pursue invention. A decade from now, Congress will further lament the lack of interest among the next generation in science, engineering, technology, and math, arrogantly unaware that it was Congress that killed that interest today with this bill, should it pass.

How do I know this boy's story so well? How can I anticipate the unintended consequences of this bill? I am the boy in this picture, and that was my story.

It would be shameful and wrong to kick out the ladder from our next generation of inventors, as this bill would do; but if my story doesn't compel you, please listen to the words of Dean Kamen. Pick your favorite inventor in history--Tesla, Edison--and Dean Kamen is that inventor of our time. Perhaps you know him as the inventor of the Segway, but he has invented a

dialysis machine, an insulin pump, and a self-balancing wheelchair. These inventions have improved the lives of millions of people all over the world.

Here is what Mr. Kamen has to say about this very legislation:

Adding uncertainty and cost to getting and maintaining

patents will be the largest single cause of the decline of

innovation and, therefore, of the economy in this country

that I've seen in my lifetime.

Mr. Kamen doesn't just invent. He inspires the next generation to invent with his America FIRST Robotics Competition that millions of students have participated in. He inspires the next generation to invent with his robotics contest.

I am scheduled to speak at two of these robotic contests in Kentucky this weekend, not to inspire these kids to be politicians, but to inspire them to be inventors. Should this bill pass, should we kick the ladder out from our young inventors, it is going to be hard for me to face them Saturday.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the inventors of America, who are pleading to them to oppose this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, section 5 of this bill shares a common defect with the rest of this bill. Although well-intentioned, it will have bad effects on our patent law. In fact, it will affect legitimate patent-holders as much or worse than it would patent trolls.

Section 5 of H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, is entitled, ``Customer- Suit Exemption.'' This section inserts a new provision into the patent code: section 296, Stay of Action Against the Customer.

The new section 296 would require a court to grant a motion to stay a patent infringement suit against certain ``covered customers.'' While well-intentioned, this section of the bill was not drafted in a careful and narrowly tailored way so as to achieve its purpose, which is to protect innocent customers, i.e., small retail customers involved in patent lawsuits.

Instead, the broad language of section 296 would likely insert more confusion into an already complicated patent infringement suit process and cause harmful unintended consequences.

For example, section 5's weakening of the right to sue downstream from the original manufacturer opens a new loophole for corporations to exploit--a huge loophole. It could allow a large computer corporation, for instance, to hide behind third-party chip manufacturers or third- party developers and thus continue to ship infringing products. The large computer corporation could thus construct a shadow shield against injunctions. The injunction tool is one of the most effective weapons in an individual, independent inventor's arsenal. We should not protect those in the supply chain who stand to benefit the most from stealing patents.

Patent experts oppose section 5 of H.R. 3309. My amendment would strike section 5 of H.R. 3309.

Let me tell you what David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, said about this bill, particularly section 5, which my amendment seeks to strike:

I am most concerned about the covered customer stay

provision which, as written, is significantly overbroad.

While we all want to help relieve innocent retailers and

coffee shops from being taken hostage in patent infringement

suits, we should not open up the patent system to abuse by

others who will take advantage of this provision to shift

liability up or down the product creation and distribution

chain to thwart legitimate innovators from enforcing their

patent rights.

We should listen to the experts. This was the former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent Office. He is telling us that this part of the bill is drafted overly broad and has unintended consequences.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, section 5 remains overly broad.

The former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office told me as early as yesterday that we are playing with fire with section 5. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose section 5 and to support my amendment.

Only in Washington, D.C., would you see the kind of hubris that is displayed here. We portend that we are going to protect the innovators--the people who invent in this country--yet we are ignoring their pleas to protect their rights. In this very bill, we will take away their rights while maintaining that we are helping them.

If you must vote for this bill, please vote for this amendment. This amendment will improve the bill considerably.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill. Kentucky's Fourth District is home to 276 miles of the Ohio River and three locks and dams. As such, we are willing hosts to millions of tons of interstate commerce.

Pursuant to our Constitution, there is a Federal role in transportation and infrastructure. Transportation is one of the few things that Congress actually should spend money on. In fact,

the constitutionality of this issue was settled two centuries ago during our Nation's infancy, in 1824, with the landmark Supreme Court decision ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden. A congressional precedent for maintaining national infrastructure was established with the Rivers and Harbors Act of that same year. As long as our country has been in existence, transportation has been a priority, especially waterborne transportation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1961 to save a historical treasure, the Delta Queen steamboat.

I grew up in Kentucky's Fourth District. We have 276 miles of the Ohio River. My memories are rich with the images of this great vessel going up and down the river. These are images that my four children will never have, unless we pass this bill today.

Just think of the inspiration and majesty of this ship. It's a ship that's rich with history. Her debut cruise took place on June 2, 1927. For the next 13 years, she ran overnight trips between Sacramento and San Francisco. From 1940 to 1946, she served the U.S. Navy as a floating barracks and a training facility in the San Francisco Bay. She traveled the Ohio River for 60 years.

In 1966, Congress passed the Safety of Life at Seas Act. Not ``at rivers,'' but ``at seas.'' This ship was caught up in an overly broad regulation. We seek to right that wrong today.

I just want to speak to the bipartisan nature of this bill. I serve on the Transportation Committee. It received overwhelming bipartisan support, and no rules were suspended to debate this bill within the committee. In fact, in 2008, as Congressman Chabot from Ohio stated, the Senate bill to extend this exemption garnered bipartisan support from Senator Mitch McConnell and then-Senator Barack Obama.

Please help us save the Delta Queen by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1961.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Private First Class Ernest Edison West of the United States Army.

Private First Class West served with Company L, 25th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action in Korea on October 12, 1952.

When Private First Class West's patrol was ambushed, he ordered his fellow men to withdraw while he braved enemy fire to reach and assist the patrol leader. In the evacuation process, he and his wounded leader came under intense enemy attack. Private First Class West used his body to shield the wounded officer and killed the attacking enemy. Although Private First Class West lost his eye and was seriously wounded, he returned again through intense fire to help evacuate more wounded soldiers.

Because of his valiant efforts and extraordinary military spirit, I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Private First Class Ernest Edison West of Kentucky's Fourth District.