Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, America's colleges and universities are training the future leaders of our Nation. In an academic setting, all viewpoints on matters of public policy deserve the chance to be heard. This tradition of academic freedom must be protected. Unfortunately, last week at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, students were denied the opportunity to hear a talk by former Congressman Tom Tancredo by protesters who interrupted his speech. Congressman Tancredo had been invited by the University of North Carolina Chapter of Youth for Western Civilization to speak on the topic of in-State tuition for illegal aliens, an issue that has been hotly debated in the State of North Carolina. Campus police shut down the event after protesters who shouted accusations of racism shattered a window of the classroom where the talk was to be held. Following the incident, I had the chance to speak with the University of North Carolina Chancellor Holden Thorp by telephone. Chancellor Thorp said he had called Congressman Tancredo to apologize for how he was treated during his visit to the campus. The chancellor also issued a public statement about the incident. He said, and I quote, ``We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture. But we also pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard. There's a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that's often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.'' That did not happen during Congressman Tancredo's visit. I commend Chancellor Thorp for extending a personal apology to Congressman Tancredo and for publicly voicing his disappointment that a visitor to the campus was denied the opportunity to express his views. On behalf of all taxpayers who support North Carolina's public universities and their system, I also would like to apologize to my former colleague, because it all comes down to one simple point: If our public universities cannot protect freedom of speech on their campuses, who will? While his opposition to in-State tuition benefits for illegal immigrants may be controversial to some, Congressman Tancredo is a respected and knowledgeable leader in the immigration reform movement. It is a shame that those with dissenting viewpoints prevented others from hearing his comments. I hope disciplinary measures will be taken, as warranted, against any student or professor who participated in disrupting Congressman Tancredo's talk. It is my understanding that the school is working with the students and would like to invite Congressman Tancredo back to campus to speak. In fact, Mr. Speaker, former Congressman Virgil Goode, another opponent of illegal immigration, is already scheduled to speak at the school tomorrow, and I hope that his speech will be protected. I hope the university will take steps to ensure that future student- sponsored discussions on the university campus at Chapel Hill do not get shut down by those with dissenting viewpoints. We have a right to agree and disagree in this country. But if we cannot protect that at a university, I don't know what the future holds, quite frankly. Again, in closing, I thank the administrators at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for working to protect the integrity of the university by allowing free speech to be exercised on their campus. If our men and women in uniform or in Afghanistan and Iraq are trying to protect the freedom in those countries, then let's do what is possible to protect the freedom of different views at our universities and our colleges in America, because they are the future leaders of America, and they have a right to participate with those who agree and disagree. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to bless our men and women in uniform, and I ask God to please bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, almost 2 million American servicemembers have served our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, many of these men and women are returning home with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and other mental health challenges. In April of 2008, a study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have symptoms of PTSD or major depression. The study also found that many servicemembers do not seek treatment for psychological illnesses because they fear it will harm their careers. Of those who do seek help for PTSD or for major depression, the study found that only about half receive treatment that research has considered minimally adequate for their illnesses. If our government and the military fail to address problems associated with PTSD, the situation will only grow worse in future years. A sad reality is that, in many cases, these servicemembers self- medicate with drugs or alcohol, and they get into trouble. One marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, in my district, has unfortunately fallen victim to this problem, and he is pending involuntary administrative separation due to misconduct. The fitness reports for this lance corporal prove that he was an outstanding marine prior to his deployments--two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. His medical board report states, ``His service in the Marine Corps caused his PTSD and, indirectly, his incidents/legal problems. The Marine Corps' failure to treat him in the past and treat him appropriately . . . has done nothing but worsen the problem.'' That is a quote from the medical review board. Madam Speaker, it will be difficult for this marine to succeed in life if he is administratively separated from service. One, he will not be eligible for TRICARE benefits. Two, he will have difficulties obtaining a job. Thirdly, it is unlikely that a university will accept him as a student. This is a story of one marine, but this is not an isolated problem. As part of addressing this problem associated with PTSD, I have introduced H.R. 1701, the PTSD/TBI Guaranteed Review for Heroes Act. The legislation creates a special review board at the Department of Defense level for servicemembers who were less than honorably discharged. Separated servicemembers would be permitted to seek a review of their discharge if their PTSD/TBI were not taken into consideration. The board would then have the authority to change the characterization of their discharge to ``honorable.'' For active duty servicemembers, the legislation would mandate a physical examination board before an administrative separation proceeding if the servicemember has been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI by a medical authority. If the servicemember is found unfit for duty, then the servicemember would be retired and given a disability rating. Otherwise, the separation board must consider the effects of PTSD and TBI on the servicemember's conduct. Madam Speaker, too many times, the same men and women who left this country as good soldiers and marines return with serious wounds, both physical and mental, and their lives are not the same. The culture within our branches of Service must change to recognize that PTSD is a real concern that must be addressed. I am grateful to have Representative Gene Taylor as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1701, and I hope that many of my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and this legislation. Madam Speaker, before I close, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. I ask God to please bless the wounded and their families and to bless the families who have given a child who has died for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, and three times, God, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and please, God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, last week, the American people were justifiably outraged by news that American International Group--AIG-- would be paying out $165 million in bonuses. AIG would be rewarding its employees for helping the economy post a record $62 billion loss--and it would be doling out these bonuses while dipping its hands in the taxpayer till. When a company is 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers and it has accepted $173 billion in Federal bailout funds, the American people expect more. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, with the start of a new week, the U.S. taxpayer is hit with reports of another ``TARP-funded corporation gone wild.'' ABC News reported that JPMorgan Chase, a bank that has received $25 billion in TARP funds, is moving ahead with a $138 million plan to buy two brand new, luxury corporate jets. The bank will also build a lavish corporate aircraft hangar to house the new jets. According to JPMorgan Chase architects, the new hangar will even be built with a vegetated roof garden. Mr. Speaker, why can't these TARP beneficiaries get a clue? Where does it end? Last fall, I voted against the $700 billion government bailout because U.S. taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab for the poor business decisions of high-flying Wall Street firms. Let's not forget--no more than a week after Congress passed this $700 billion bailout, AIG spent over $400,000 on a lavish retreat for company executives--after they had accepted $85 billion in Federal bailout money. The behavior of these financial institutions shows that taxpayers will certainly get a raw deal when the Federal Government does not demand oversight and accountability. These corporations have resorted to taking taxpayer dollars to stave off failures, yet they are still spending like it's business as usual. All the while, the working people of this country are tightening their wallets and coping with a tough economy. Our country's outstanding public debt is more than $11 trillion, and it grows by nearly $4 billion every day. When will the Federal Government stop digging the American taxpayers into this debt? Mr. Speaker, it's time for our government to start working for the American taxpayer and not the other way around. The American taxpayer is tired and fed up with business as usual. We have got to change the way we do business and remember that the taxpayers pay the bills and the debt of this government. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will say God continue to bless our men and women in uniform, and God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House, from both parties, for joining me as cosponsors of H.R. 24, legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. As of today, this legislation has 100 cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing for the Congress to do. For the past 7 years, the language of this bill has been part of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. And this year, I'm grateful to have the support of Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine, who introduced the same bill in the Senate, S. 504. With his help, I'm hopeful this will be the year the Senate supports the House position, and we can bring proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and the Marine Corps. It is important to remember: The National Security Act of 1947 defines the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and Air Force as the four services. It clearly indicates that the Marine Corps is a legally distinct military service within the Department of the Navy. The Navy and Marine Corps have operated as one entity for more than two centuries, and H.R. 24 would enable the name of their department to illustrate this fact. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share part of a 2006 editorial published by the Chicago Tribune which describes what that legislation is really all about. And I quote the editorial, ``no service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the Corps an important show of respect, equal billing with the other service branches.'' They are the words that were in the editorial in the Chicago Tribune. But sometimes it is good to break with tradition. The War Department, for example, became the Department of Defense after World War II. The Army Air Corps was elevated in 1941 to the Army Air Forces, and in 1947 to the autonomous Air Force. The Marine Corps has not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing structurally needs to change in their relations with the Navy which has served both branches well. The Corps only asks for recognition. Having served their Nation proudly and courageously since colonial days, the leathernecks have earned a promotion. Mr. Speaker, the marines who are fighting today deserve this recognition. Before closing, I would like to show you what this change could mean to the family of a fallen Marine. Mr. Speaker, on this poster is an enlargement of a copy of a letter that the Secretary of the Navy sent to a Marine Corps family. The Marine was killed for this Nation serving in Iraq. And I read from the letter from the Secretary of the Navy, and I will point out that the head of the letter says, ``the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.,'' with the zip code, November 18, 2008. ``Dear Marine Corps family, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, please accept my very sincere condolences on the loss of your loved one.'' Mr. Speaker, if this becomes reality this year, should this be a requirement, if any more of our Marines are killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the letterhead would say, ``the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., Dear Marine Corps family, on behalf of the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. This is one fighting team, and the name should carry equal, Navy and Marine Corps. And with that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I will ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to place in His loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I close by asking God to continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, to date, the Federal Government has given American International Group, AIG, $173 billion in bailout funds. AIG, which is now 80 percent owned by the American taxpayer, posted a record $62 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2008. And that's why this week the American people were outraged to hear that AIG would be paying out $165 million in bonuses, courtesy of the United States taxpayer. To add insult to injury, the bulk of the payments are going to employees of AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold the risky contracts that caused massive losses for AIG. The American people are angry and frustrated. They want to know why are we giving taxpayer money to failing companies so they can hand out bonuses? Mr. Speaker, last fall I voted against this $700 billion government bailout because I do not believe American taxpayers should pick up the tab for the poor business decisions and greed of high-flying Wall Street firms. Because the bailout was authorized, every American taxpayer has an interest in ensuring that the U.S. Treasury does not recklessly squander their hard-earned money. And the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, as former CEO of Goldman Sachs, allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, but AIG got a bailout. AIG went on to pay out $13 billion of that Federal aid to trading partner Goldman Sachs. And now, thanks to the American taxpayer, AIG is still doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in employee benefits and retention pay. To the taxpayers who are footing the bill, the Federal Government's selection of winners and losers just does not meet the smell test. The lack of oversight in the process is outrageous. Employees in eastern North Carolina, which I have the privilege to represent, are not rewarded bonuses when their companies lose money. Constituents in my district want to know why should the employees of Wall Street be any different? I join the American taxpayers in their frustration. I pay taxes, and I'm frustrated too. Unfortunately, all we hear from AIG chairman Ed Liddy is that AIG's hands are tied because these bonuses are based on binding contracts that were made before the government bailout. Well, Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the current administration better make sure that no further corporate bonuses are paid for with taxpayers' money. I thank President Obama for speaking out so clearly and plainly about these retention bonuses because, like those of us in Congress, he has been hearing from frustrated taxpayers. I call on the Federal Government to explore every legal option available to block these excessive and undeserved bonuses on behalf of the taxpayers of America. And in closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Berman, Chris Smith, Mr. Holt and everyone else. I saw this story about this family probably a year ago, and it broke my heart, quite frankly. I do not understand how a country such as Brazil, which I have respect for, could allow this to happen. This is not what the world should be about. The world should be about trying to bring families together, and Brazil has a responsibility that they are not making and they are not keeping. I would say to the country of Brazil that if this was reversed, I believe that this House, the leadership of Mr. Berman and Mr. Smith, would be on this floor saying to the family here that was keeping the son of a father in Brazil, Let's send him back to his father. So I hope that the country of Brazil and those who are here in Washington, D.C. representing their country or listening to this debate, I hope that they will fully understand that this is a debate of compassion. Mr. Goldman and his son Sean, they have every right to be together. So I came down here to the floor today from North Carolina with not a great deal to add to this debate but my heart. And my heart says let's get this family together. I thank very much Mr. Berman and Mr. Smith, and say to the Brazilian government, please listen to the American people. Let's work together for the good of this family.

Mr. JONES. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. JONES. I thank Chairman Berman, and before I yield back, I ask God to please intervene on behalf of this wonderful family and bring the father and the son back together.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 24, legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. For the past 7 years, the language of this bill has been part of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Last year, 152 Members of the House cosponsored the bill to support this change. This session, the bill has gained 58 cosponsors so far. I hope many of the new Members of the House will consider supporting H.R. 24. This year, I am grateful to have the support of Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine, who recently introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S. 504. I hope that the Senate will support the House position and maybe this will be the year that Congress sends legislation to the President to bring proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but is important to the team. I would like to read a statement by one supporter of this change, the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs from 1993-1998: ``As a combat veteran and a former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that: a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.'' Madam Speaker, the Marines who are fighting today deserve this recognition. Before I close, I would like to point out there are many, many justifications for renaming the department Navy and Marine Corps. We all know that the Navy and Marine Corps are one fighting team, and that is the history of both the Navy and the Marine Corps. Madam Speaker, on this poster is a condolence letter from the Department of the Navy. This was sent to the wife of a Marine who was killed in Iraq for this country. Madam Speaker, on the letter sent by the Secretary of the Navy, it says ``The Secretary of the Navy.'' Then the first sentence, it says, ``On behalf of the Department of the Navy, please accept our very sincere condolences.'' Well, Madam Speaker, that is very kind of the Secretary of the Navy, and I am sure that the Marine family that gave a loved one who died for this country during warfare appreciates that letter, but I respectfully say that even more important to the Marine family who lost a loved one would be that if the letter had said, ``The Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps,'' with the flag of the Navy and the flag of the Marine Corps, and then it further stated, ``Dear Marine Corps Family: On behalf of the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps, please accept my sincere condolences.'' Madam Speaker, before I close, I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base and Cherry Point Air Station in my district, and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Other parts of the Armed Forces have the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force. Now we need to have a Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. It's only right to the Marine Corps that they be equally represented and equally respected. With that, Madam Speaker, I ask God to please continue to bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Sgt. Jeff Cooper (Ret.), a North Carolina resident and a U.S. Army Veteran. The Cooper family was recently chosen by the ABC television show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, as the recipients of a new home. They have been living in a deteriorating double-wide trailer that is not only uncomfortable, but also is not suitable for the disabled members of their family. With the help of Edenton Builders, Inc. and thousands of volunteers from northeastern North Carolina, their home will be rebuilt in just one week. On March 13th, when the Cooper family returns home to Jamesville, North Carolina, from their vacation here in Washington, D.C., they will be welcomed into their new home. Madam Speaker, Sgt. Cooper (Ret.) is someone who truly deserves this honor. He has earned several medals of honor for his service as an Army Combat Medic in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I remember that when my father, Congressman Walter B. Jones, Sr., passed away, Sgt. Cooper (Ret.) paid him the great respect of placing one of the medals he had earned on my father's casket. I will always remember this meaningful gesture and kind display of appreciation for my father's service. Unfortunately, Sgt. Cooper's (Ret.) service on behalf of our nation left him with symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome; he suffers from multiple sclerosis as well as serious immune disorders. Due to these illnesses, he is now confined to a wheelchair. Since he returned from combat, Cooper has been a tireless advocate for his fellow veterans. He has lobbied the North Carolina General Assembly for a special license plate honoring Gulf War veterans and has become an outspoken supporter of rights for the disabled. Sgt. Cooper (Ret.) deserves to be commended not only for his service to our nation and his fellow veterans, but also for the acts of heroism he has demonstrated within his own family. When his young son Aaron was run over by a garbage truck two years ago, he used his medic skills to save his son's life, though Aaron still lost most of his right arm and has undergone several surgeries since. Cooper has served as a role model to his children, as his daughter Windy has followed her father's example by signing up for medical lab technician training with the Army National Guard. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the family of Sgt. Jeff Cooper (Ret.), a special person whose service to his nation and fellow veterans has made him well-deserving of this new home and special honor.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has asked many of its military personnel to serve in Iraq and in Afghanistan to fight for freedom and for the protection of the American people. Unfortunately, many of these servicemembers are returning home with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder--PTSD--and other mental health challenges. A 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have symptoms of PTSD or major depression. This study also found that many servicemembers say they do not seek treatment for psychological illnesses because they fear it will harm their careers. If our government and the military fail to address problems associated with PTSD, the situation will only grow worse in future years. One disturbing example involves Lance Corporal Jeremy Smerud, a marine who is stationed in my district at Camp Lejeune. Last month, I received a letter from his mother, who is very concerned about how the Marine Corps is treating her son. Mr. Speaker, for the second time, I would like to read the letter from Jeremy's mother: ``My son joined the Marine Corps while still in high school. I remember him as a little boy, looking in awe of his grandfather in his Marine Corps uniform and telling me that was what he was going to be when he grew up. ``Growing up, Jeremy was the son every parent could be proud of. He never got into any trouble in school. He was always there to help with his younger siblings, held a job after school, and was extremely active in the Boy Scouts. He earned his rank of Eagle Scout at the age of 16. Because of his Eagle Scout status, he entered the Marine Corps as a PFC and quickly rose to the rank of sergeant within his first 3 years in the Marines. He was an exemplary marine and an exemplary young man. ``If you review his military records, you can plainly see that Jeremy had no problems with behavior or performance prior to his deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had a very difficult time readjusting to life after the conflict. He came home to a `Dear John' letter, has had several friends injured and killed, and has seen more destruction than most of us will in a lifetime. Having no one to turn to for help because of the stigma and the fear of losing his career, he started drinking to self-medicate and to be able to sleep. ``Congressman, do you know what it is like to listen to your once strong son cry like a baby at 3:30 in the morning 3 or 4 times a week because he cannot handle what he has been through? Wanting to kill himself because he doesn't feel he is worthy to live because his brothers were shot? Do you know what it's like to be 1,500 miles away and not have the ability to help him through this, all the while wondering and asking why the Corps he so proudly served and willingly has written him off as worthless and weak and has offered no help to prevent him from faltering further? ``I am so desperately disappointed in the way the Corps has treated my son. My son left the Marine Corps 100 percent intact. He will be leaving the Marine Corps with two feet that are fractured, back and knee problems, decreased hearing, decreased vision, and PTSD that will carry a life-long burden for him. ``Yet, according to the Corps, he has disgraced them by his behavior and is no longer worthy. The way I see this, they used him, abused him, now will discard him and find some fresh, young man who isn't tainted, and they will mold him and ask him to sacrifice himself for their cause, and when he is no longer of use to them, they will discard him as well. ``I hope with all my heart the Marine Corps will find the moral courage to do the right thing when it comes to not only Jeremy but all other young men and women who need their help and guidance.'' Mr. Speaker, I along with Congressman Tom Latham have written the Commandant of the Marine Corps about this marine who is pending Involuntary Administrative Separation due to misconduct. Lance Corporal Smerud's fitness report proved that he was an outstanding marine prior to his deployments. His medical board report states, ``His service in the Marine Corps caused his PTSD and indirectly his incidents/legal problems. The Marine Corps' failure to treat him in the past and treat him appropriately has done nothing but worsen the problem.'' Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult for this marine to succeed in life if he is administratively separated from the Service. He will not be eligible for TRICARE benefits; he will have difficulty obtaining a job, and it is unlikely that a university will accept him as a student. This is a story of one marine, but this is not an isolated problem. The culture within all branches of Service must change to recognize that PTSD is a real concern that must be addressed. Mr. Speaker, as I close, I want to say that I have great faith in the Marine Corps and in all of our Services. I ask the Marine Corps to please look into this case and all cases of those who have PTSD. They deserve the love, and they deserve the treatment of this Nation. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform, to bless the families who have given their loved one in Afghanistan and in Iraq--those who have died--and to bless the wounded, and I ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, the Navy and Marine Corps have operated as one entity for more than two centuries, and H.R. 24 would enable the name of their department to illustrate this fact. For the past 7 years, the full House of Representatives has supported this change as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This year I'm grateful to have the support of Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine who recently introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S. 504. I hope that the Senate will support the House position and join in bringing proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Marines who are fighting today in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve this recognition. Madam Speaker, last month I had the privilege of addressing more than 200 Marine Corps veterans and retirees at the Marine Corps League's mid-winter conference. The Marine Corps League has nearly 70,000 members nationwide, and their shared mission is preserving the traditions and promoting the interests of the United States Marine Corps. As in years past, I spoke to their mid-winter conference about legislation introduced like H.R. 24 to designate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Marine Corps League has proudly endorsed this legislation and has pledged to work with my office to secure its passage by the House and Senate. Over the years I have been encouraged by the overwhelming support I have received for this change from so many members and veterans of the United States Armed Forces. I am honored to have the support of Michael Blum, the national executive director of the Marine Corps League. He's a highly decorated combat marine, who served honorably off the coast of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. He also served his country in the Philippines, Korea, and Vietnam. It is because of great marines like Michael Blum that I continue to champion this cause for the United States Marine Corps. Madam Speaker, I want to also thank Senator Pat Roberts for joining me on the Senate side in this effort to rename the Department of Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. And before I close, I would like to point out the importance of this. There are many important reasons why this should take place. The history of both the Navy and Marine Corps, the fact that they are one fighting team. But, Madam Speaker, with our Marines and Army and other personnel dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to show you exactly why and how this would be important to a Marine family who lost a loved one fighting for this great Nation. I have a poster that is actually a letter from the current Secretary of the Navy. It's a condolence letter. Certainly I took the family's name out and the deceased's name. And I will read just one sentence, Madam Speaker: From the Secretary of the Navy, November 18, 2008: ``On behalf of the Department of the Navy, please accept my very sincere condolences on the loss of your son Captain Joseph A. Marine.'' Obviously we substituted that last name out of respect. Madam Speaker, if this should become the law of the land, and it is so, so justified that we would have the Department of Navy and Marine Corps as one, one fighting team, this is what the condolence letter would say, Madam Speaker. It would say the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington D.C., November 18 of 2008, and it would say, ``Dear Marine Corps Family: On behalf of the Department of Navy and Marine Corps, please accept my very sincere condolences.'' Madam Speaker, this is only right. I want to thank the House of Representatives, Congressman and former Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, Duncan Hunter, and present Chairman Ike Skelton for always supporting this legislation, and my many colleagues who have done so. This year, with the help of Senator Pat Roberts, I think this can become a reality. With that, Madam Speaker, I ask God to continue to bless our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, to bless their families, to bless the families who have given a loved one dying for freedom. And I ask God three times, please, God; please, God; please God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of our Nation, members of the United States Armed Forces have given their lives to secure and protect the freedoms America enjoys today. Today U.S. servicemembers are serving our Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world. Without a loved one serving in our military, it is all too possible for Americans to overlook the sacrifices that have been made and continue to be made by the men and women of the armed services. It is for this reason that I have introduced H.R. 269, the Fallen Hero Commemoration Act. This legislation would require the Department of Defense to permit media coverage when the remains of troops who had died in active duty arrive at military installations in the United States. Currently, the Department of Defense does not, does not permit arrival ceremonies for or media coverage of deceased military personnel returning or departing from United States military installations. This ban on media coverage has been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. However, earlier this month President Obama announced that he had ordered a review of this policy, and the Pentagon is expected to complete its review soon. While I welcome a decision by the current administration to repeal this ban on media coverage, enacting the Fallen Hero Commemoration Act would ensure by statute that our Nation properly commemorates the service of our fallen heroes now and in the years to come. If this legislation is enacted, the privacy of military families would be protected. Private memorial services would remain private and only credentialed media, as approved by the Department of Defense, would be permitted to cover the arrival of fallen heroes at U.S. military installations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record two letters I have received in support of the Fallen Hero Commemoration Act. One letter is an endorsement from the American Society of News Editors, and the other is from the National Press Photographers Association. As Mickey Osterreicher, father of a newly commissioned Air Force second lieutenant and general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, wrote in a letter that is submitted--and I would like to read just a paragraph. ``It is one thing for a family to request that we not cover a private event it is another for the military to impose a total ban.'' This legislation would not only honor those who have given their lives in defense of our Nation, but also uphold the freedoms for which they gave the ultimate sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope that my colleagues here on the House floor will look seriously at H.R. 269 so that we may properly commemorate the sacrifices made by the United States servicemembers. And, Mr. Speaker, I have signed well over 8,000 letters to families and extended families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. So I want to close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform; ask God to please bless the families who have given a loved one in Afghanistan and Iraq; and I ask God to please, three times, God please continue to bless America; please, God, continue to bless America; please, God, continue to bless America. National Press Photographers Association, Inc., The Society of Professional Photojournalists, Durham, NC. January 12, 2009. Hon. Walter Jones, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Jones: As general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) I would like to thank you for your introduction of H.R. 269, the ``Fallen Hero Commemoration Act.'' It is my understanding that this legislation would direct the ``Secretary of Defense to grant access to accredited members of the media when the remains of members of the Armed Forces arrive at military installations in the United States.'' The NPPA represents almost 10,000 still and video photojournalists throughout the United States. As such we are very aware that the Department of Defense currently prohibits media coverage of these solemn ceremonies. Throughout our history photojournalists have documented every aspect of human endeavor from triumphs to tragedies. It is unfortunate that war often times creates the most compelling images. From Matthew Brady's graphic photos of Civil War battlefields to Joe Rosenthal's raising of the American Flag on Iwo Jima news photographers have risked (and all too often lost) their lives to capture these moments so that the public may be informed of these newsworthy events. A free, robust and unfettered press is as much a part of our history and culture as is the Constitution and the three branches of government. To deny media coverage of the return of our fallen heroes is a brazen attempt by the military to deny history. While our government tries to bring liberty and democracy to all corners of the world it lately seems to have forgotten that those freedoms are no less important at home. As a former photojournalist for over thirty years and the father of a newly commissioned 2nd Lt. in the USAF training to one day fly A-l0's I can state unequivocally that my colleagues mean no disrespect to the uniform or the families when we cover these moving events. Quite the opposite is true--as photojournalists try to honestly and accurately depict these moments for all to see. It is one thing for a family to request that we not cover a private event it is another for the military to impose a total ban. We agree that by once again permitting access to accredited members of the media at the arrival of the remains of fallen service members at U.S. military installations, this legislation would not only honor those who have given their lives in defense of our Nation but also uphold the freedoms for which they gave the ultimate sacrifice. Please feel free to contact me should you need anything further. In the past members of NPPA have testified at hearings on a number of issues related to photojournalism and we would be more than happy to do so again should the need arise. Very truly yours, Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, while our Nation faces many serious issues, from the economy to health care, there is one important issue we must not forget. That is the issue of American servicemembers who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental health challenges. Earlier this month, I received a letter from the mother of a marine who is stationed in my district at Camp Lejeune. This mother is very concerned about how the Marine Corps is treating her son. And I would like to read from her letter. ``Congressman Jones, my son joined the United States Marine Corps while still in high school. I remember him as a little boy looking in awe at his grandfather in his Marine Corps uniform and telling me that was what he was going to be when he grew up. ``Growing up, he was the son every parent could be proud of. He never got into any trouble in school, was always there to help with his younger siblings, held a job after school and was extremely active in the Boy Scouts. He earned his rank of Eagle Scout at the age of 16 and held many positions within the Boy Scouts. ``Because of his Eagle Scout status, he entered the Marine Corps as a PFC and quickly rose to the rank of sergeant within his first 3 years in the Marines. He was an exemplary marine and an exemplary young man. ``If you review his military record, you can plainly see that he had no problems with behavior or performance prior to his deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. ``He has had a very difficult time readjusting to life after conflict. He came home to a `Dear John' letter, had several friends injured and killed and has seen more destruction than most of us will see in a lifetime. And having no one to turn to for help because of the stigma and the fear of losing his career, he started drinking to self- medicate so that he would be able to sleep. ``Congressman, do you know what it is like to listen to your once- strong son cry like a baby at 3:30 in the morning three to four times a week because he can't handle what he has been through? Wanting to kill himself because he doesn't feel he is worthy to live because his brothers were shot down? ``Do you know what it is like to be 1,500 miles away and not have the ability to help him through this? All the while wondering and asking why the Corps he served so proudly and willingly has written him off as worthless and weak and offer no help to prevent him from faltering further? ``I am so sadly disappointed in the way the Corps has treated my son. My son left for the Marine Corps 100 percent intact. He will be leaving the Marine Corps with two feet that are fractured, back and knee problems, decreased hearing and decreased vision and PTSD that will carry a lifetime burden for him. ``And yet, according to the Corps, he has disgraced them by his behavior and he is no longer worthy. The way I see it, they used him, abused him and now will discard him and find some fresh young man who `isn't tainted' and they will mold him and ask him to sacrifice himself for their cause. And when he is no longer of use to them, they will discard him, as well. ``I hope with all my heart that the Marine Corps will find the moral courage to do the right thing when it comes to not only my son, but all those other young men and women who need their help and guidance.'' Mr. Speaker, this letter may tell the story of just one marine, but this is not an uncommon tale. An April 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were surveyed have symptoms of PTSD or other major depression. The study also found that many servicemembers say they do not seek treatment for psychological illness because they feel it will harm their careers. While Congress has implemented some positive reforms in funding increases to improve veterans' health care in recent years, more must be done to ensure that our veterans are receiving adequate care and compensation. Promises made should be promises kept. And our Nation must never forget the servicemembers and veterans who have gone to war for this country. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to put into the Record that I have been talking with the Marine Corps. They have promised me they will try to help this young marine. And I must close, Mr. Speaker, for all those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and all those who were killed and all of those wounded both physically and mentally, that God continue to bless our servicemen and God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, last month I introduced H.R. 24, legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy to be the Department of Navy and Marine Corps. For the past 7 years, the language of this bill has been part of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I would like to thank the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, the current chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, and all of the members of the committee for their support. Each year, the full House of Representatives have supported this change. This year I hope the Senate will support the change and adopt the House position and join in bringing proper respect to the fighting team, the Navy and Marine Corps. There is much I could say about the history of both great services, but the reason for this legislation always comes down to one issue-- whenever a chief of Navy operations or commandant of the Marine Corps has come to testify before the Armed Services Committee, I've heard the Navy and the Marine Corps say, ``We are one fighting team.'' This is true, and I believe this. Then why should not the team be named ``Navy and Marine Corps''? Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team. This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Department, reallocating resources between the Navy and Marine Corps, or altering their mission. The Navy and Marine Corps have operated as one entity for more than 2 centuries, and H.R. 24 would enable the name of their department to illustrate this fight. Over the years, I have been encouraged by the overwhelming support I have received for this change from so many members of the United States Armed Forces. I will quote one supporter of this change, the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs from 1993 to 1998, who said, ``As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that: a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a list of others who have supported this effort to provide proper recognition for the Marine Corps. With their backing, I will continue to work diligently to see this bill through the House and push for the Senate's support. The Marines who are fighting today deserve this recognition. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to show what this change could mean to a family of a fallen Marine. Mr. Speaker, first, this is a copy of a letter to a Marine family, a Marine captain who was killed for this Nation. The Secretary of the Navy sent this letter. We have removed the name respectfully, and it says, ``The Secretary of the Navy.'' ``On behalf of the Department of the Navy''--this is a proud team. ``On behalf of the Department of Navy,'' the captain, Marine captain's wife received this letter of condolences. And I do commend the Secretary of the Navy for writing the letter of condolences. But Mr. Speaker, if this bill should ever become the law of the land--and I hope this will be the year--that Marine family who gave a loved one for this country will receive the letter from the Department of Navy and Marine Corps and it will say in the heading, ``Dear Marine Corps Family, on behalf of the Department of Navy and Marine Corps, please accept my very sincere condolences.'' Mr. Speaker, this is what it should be: one Department of Navy and Marine Corps. I hope, again, the House will send this to the Senate. I hope this year the Senate will accept the House position. It is the right thing to do for the team. God bless America, and God bless our men and women in uniform, and please, God, continue to bless America. H.R. 24: Supporters of the Redesignation of the Department of the Navy To Be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps In the past eight years, the following have supported the change: Individuals Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitz (1963-1967); Assistant Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett, III (1989-1992); Acting Secretary of the Navy Daniel Howard (1992); Secretary of the Navy John Dalton (1998-2001); General Carl Mundy, 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps; General Charles Krulak, 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps; Admiral Stansfield Turner; Rear Admiral James T. Carey (Chairman, National Defense PAC); Deputy Asst. Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs Wade Sanders (1993-1998); James Zumwalt, Jr., (Son of the former

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, on September 14, 2006, I first stood before this House to call attention to the case of two United States Border agents who were convicted in Federal court for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our borders in 2005. Now, Mr. Speaker, more than 2\1/2\ years and more than 45 speeches later, I stand before this House to thank President Bush for heeding the calls of the American people by commuting the sentences of Agents Ramos and Compean. The agents entered Federal prison on January 17, 2007, to begin serving sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively. Both men are now due to be released from prison on March 20, 2009, after serving 26 months. Like the millions of Americans who have followed the case over the past several years, I am so relieved to see the unjust imprisonment of these distinguished law enforcement officers finally come to an end. As these men sat in Federal prison for 2 years, my heart ached for them and their families. While I firmly believe that these agents never should have been prosecuted, I am very grateful that President Bush has used his authority to close this ugly chapter in their lives. I will do everything in my power to see that Ramos and Compean are able to reclaim their lives and in due time will be fully exonerated with a pardon. The prosecution and imprisonment of Agents Ramos and Compean has been a black mark for the United States justice system. Its legacy will not be forgotten by those of us in Congress who have criticized the indictment of these two men. The facts of this case have shown, as Judge E. Grady Jolly stated on December 3, 2007, during the agents' appeal, and I quote Judge Jolly, ``The government overreacted here, and for some reason this one got out of hand.'' The truth of why this indictment was able to move forward and get out of hand still deserves to be investigated. The truth of why this indictment was able to move forward and get out of hand still should be investigated. I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it should be investigated. However, it is clear that President Bush understood one of the most troubling aspects of this case, the agents were charged under a statute intended for violent criminals carrying guns, not for law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. This statute, which carries a sentence of no less than 10 years, was enacted by Congress to discourage criminals from carrying guns. It was never intended to apply to law enforcement officers who are required to carry firearms on the job. This was clearly a sentence Ramos and Compean should never have been ordered to serve. In closing, Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with the agents, Ramos and Compean, as they are finally able to return home to their families and their children. And may God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, before President Bush leaves office next week, he has the power to correct a terrible injustice. Over the past 2 years, Members of Congress have written to the President, as a group and individually, asking him to commute the sentences of imprisoned U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. It is well known that these border agents were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought $1 million worth of marijuana across the U.S. border in 2005. This Saturday, January 17 of 2009, will mark the beginning of the agents' 3rd year in Federal prison. On November 24, 2008, President Bush granted 14 pardons and two commutations. Clemency was granted to individuals convicted of crimes such as drug conspiracy, tax evasion, poisoning bald eagles, dumping hazardous waste, bank embezzlement, and theft of government property. On December 22, 2008, the President issued 19 additional pardons and one commutation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Ramos and Compean have not made the list. With the help of Lou Dobbs and countless other news outlets, Americans across this Nation have learned of the unjust prosecution of these two men who were doing their job to protect our border. Since the agents' convictions, the White House has received thousands of phone calls from outraged citizens and letters sent by Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle. On November 20 of 2008, I joined Congressman Bill Delahunt, Dana Rohrabacher, and others in a letter to pardon Attorney Ronald Rogers, which outlined the reasons for our request. And most recently on December 11, 2008, I wrote the President that he commute the agents' sentences before they have to spend another Christmas in Federal prison, and, Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter for the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 11, 2008. Hon. George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my deep disappointment that the 14 pardons and two commutations you granted on November 24, 2008, did not include commutations for imprisoned U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Instead, clemency was granted to those convicted of crimes such as drug conspiracy, tax evasion, poisoning bald eagles, dumping hazardous waste, bank embezzlement and theft of government property. Mr. President, this week I opened a Christmas card which pictured two beautiful families with three children each. I was deeply saddened when I realized these were photos of the Ramos and Compean families--who will face another Christmas with husbands and fathers locked away in federal prison if you fail to intervene on their behalf. Knowing that it has become customary during the final days of a president's term to grant pardons and commutations in criminal cases, I urge you to take the time to personally review the prosecution of agents Ramos and Compean. I am confident the facts of their case will lead you to the same conclusion countless American citizens have already reached: there are no individuals more worthy of presidential commutations than agents Ramos and Compean. The facts of the case will show--as Judge E. Grady Jolly stated on December 3, 2007, during the agents' appeal-- ``the government overreacted here * * * for some reason, this one got out of hand.'' By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, agents Ramos and Compean were enforcing our laws--not breaking them. Simply put, the indictments against these men were unjustified. As countless Americans and many in Congress have brought to your attention over the past two years, agents Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across the U.S. border in 2005. Both men entered prison on January 17, 2007, and have served nearly two years of their sentences. Since the agents' convictions, your office has received thousands of phone calls from concerned citizens and numerous letters from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Most recently, on November 13, 2008, I wrote a letter urging you to commute the agents' sentences to time served. On November 20, 2008, I also joined Congressmen Bill Delahunt, Dana Rohrabacher and others in a letter to Pardon Attorney Ronald Rodgers which outlined the rationale for this request. Many disturbing details of the Ramos and Compean case have garnered national attention and raised serious concerns over the lack of fairness in the proceedings against these two men--including the prosecution's efforts to seek out and offer immunity to a habitual Mexican drug smuggler, a sealed indictment of the smuggler's subsequent drug offenses and insufficient proof of whether or not the smuggler was unarmed, as he claimed at trial. All of these factors strongly call into question whether justice was served. Among the most serious matters warranting your consideration is the U.S. Attorney's decision to charge Ramos and Compean with violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)--which pertains to the use of a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence and carries a mandatory 10-year sentence. Any failure by the agents to report the shooting of the drug smuggler constitutes an administrative error that should have been addressed. However, the application of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) to two U.S. Border Patrol agents in lawful possession of their firearms appears grossly inappropriate. Because agents Ramos and Compean were required to carry firearms during the course of their duties, I urge you to consider commuting this 10-year mandatory minimum sentence enhancement. Mr. President, the end of your term is quickly approaching and time is running out for you to heed the calls of the American people and reverse the grave injustice committed against agents Ramos and Compean. No useful purpose is served by the continued incarceration of these distinguished law enforcement officers. During this Christmas season, a time of peace and thanksgiving for the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ, I urge you to open your heart to the pleas of the American people and commute the sentences of these two Hispanic-American heroes. Sincerely, Walter B. Jones, Member of Congress. A response from the White House said that the agents' requests for commutation ``are receiving a careful and fair review.'' If the President takes the time to personally review the agents' case, I am confident the facts will lead him to the same conclusion that the majority of Americans have already reached: The indictments against these men were unjustified. The President should carefully consider one of the most troubling aspects of this case: The agents were charged under a statute intended for violent criminals carrying guns, not for law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. Because the border agents were required to carry firearms during the course of their duties, I urge the President to commute the 10-year mandatory sentence for these charges. Mr. Speaker, time is running out for the President to reverse this grave injustice committed against Ramos and Compean. I pray that he will open his heart to the pleas of the American people and commute the sentences of these two deserving men.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respectfully request unanimous consent that the following Members be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 6233: Messrs. Elton Gallegly, John Kline, Robert Brady, Adam Smith, and Solomon Ortiz.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I introduced H.R. 5993, the Presidential Signing Statements Act. This bill would promote congressional and public awareness and understanding of Presidential signing statements. I am very pleased that next Friday the House Judiciary Committee will examine the issue of Presidential signing statements as part of a hearing on the balance of powers in our government. The history of Presidential signing statements dates back to the 19th century. However, on September 17, 2007, a Congressional Research Service report noted that U.S. presidents have increasingly employed these statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments. In doing so, Presidents sometimes communicate their intent to disregard certain provisions of bills they have signed into law. It is for this reason that I have introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act. Just as the American people have access to the text of bills that are signed into law, they should have easy and prompt access to the content of Presidential signing statements that could affect how those the laws will be executed. To enable a more complete public understanding of our Nation's laws, the Congress should also be able to call for the executive explanation and justification for a Presidential signing statement. According to CRS, President Clinton signed 381 signing statements while in office. Seventy of these statements raised legal and constitutional objections. President George Bush has signed 157 signing statements, 122 of these statements contain some type of constitutional challenge or objections. Because future Presidents are likely to continue this practice, Congress should act now to pass legislation to ensure proper understanding and disclosure of these signing statements. The American Bar Association recently examined the issue of presidential signing statements and appointed the task force on presidential signing statements and the separation of powers doctrine. The task force issued a report urging Congress to enact legislation requiring the President to promptly submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues and to submit a congressional, to the Congress, a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for this statement. The ABA also recommended that such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database. The bill that I introduced would require the President to provide copies of signing statements to congressional leadership within 3 days of being issued. Secondly, it would require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register; and, third, require executive staff to testify on the meaning and justification for Presidential signing statements at the request of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee; and, fourth, provide that no monies may be used to implement any law accompanied by the signing statements if any provision of the act is violated. Because it's critical that we preserve the division of power in our government and public understanding of our Nation's laws, I hope many of my colleagues will consider cosigning the Presidential Signing Statements Act. I look forward to next week's House Judiciary Committee hearing, and the opportunity to further discuss why this legislation is a much- needed piece of legislation. Before I close, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief. I want to thank Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Ehlers, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, and you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, for working on this legislation. It certainly is something that we don't think about, life and death, as much as maybe we should and be prepared. But it has been explained by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Ehlers exactly what it does. So I want to quickly say that when my father, who served in the Congress 26 years, passed away and we were trying to settle his estate, the treasurer of his account, an attorney, who didn't really want anything, but he said by law I'm responsible for the distribution of these monies. And so it came to me at that time that it should be made as easy for the family as possible when a loved one, if he or she is serving, or maybe a candidate should pass away in office, and it does happen, sadly, from time to time. So, again, in closing, I want to thank Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Brady and Ms. Lofgren for moving this bill to the floor of the House. And I hope one day that the President can sign this because it's what should be done for the family.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the Members of the House are aware, in February of 2006, U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought $1 million worth of marijuana across our borders into Texas. The agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison and now have been in Federal prison, in solitary confinement, for 545 days. On June 18, 2008, I sent a letter, signed by Congressman Ted Poe, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Virgil Goode, Congressmen Louie Gohmert, John Culberson, and Don Manzullo, to ask the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the actions of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in this case. At this point, we have not received the response from the Justice Department. And I only hope they are thoroughly examining the details of this prosecution. One of the main reasons for our request for this investigation stems from the firearm charges used by his office in prosecuting the agents. The charge carried a 10-year minimum sentence. Without this charge, one of the agents, Agent Ramos, would have already completed his sentence and would be out of prison and with his family today. When you look at the history of why Congress enacted this statute, one reason stands out, to warn criminals to think twice before they put a gun in their pocket on the way to the scene of a crime. The reason for this statute clearly does not apply to law enforcement Officers Ramos and Compean. These men were not carrying guns so they could commit a crime. They were required to carry guns as part of their job. The real criminal in this case, the Mexican drug smuggler, has since pled guilty to smuggling additional loads of drugs. He is scheduled to face sentencing in Federal Court tomorrow. This is the same drug smuggler who the prosecution portrayed as a one-time offender and gave him free medical care, border-crossing cards and immunity to testify against our border agents. While the American people won't wait for the Fifth United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to render its decision on the agents' appeal, I am hopeful that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold a hearing to investigate this injustice. I thank Chairman John Conyers and his staff for their interest in investigating this case. This case deserves a hearing because Ramos and Compean were doing their job to protect our borders. They should never have been prosecuted. During oral arguments for their appeal on December 3, 2007, one of the judges considering the case, Judge E. Grady Jolly said, and I quote the judge, ``It does seem to me that the government overreacted here. For some reason this one got out of hand.'' I want the families of Agents Ramos and Compean to know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I will continue to do all we can to see that this miscarriage of justice corrected.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, I received a notice from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Architect of the Capitol directing me to remove a memorial located outside of my office that honors fallen Marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The notice stated that the Faces of the Fallen memorial does not comply with the new hallway policy of the House. However, memorials to honor the lives of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are respectfully displayed and should not fall under the Hallway Policy's jurisdiction. In 2004, Congressman Rahm Emanuel and I introduced legislation calling for an exhibit in the Capitol Rotunda to honor U.S. servicemembers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our legislation was never considered. Instead, House Speaker Dennis Hastert directed the construction of a memorial listing names of the fallen in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. Because we believed more should be done to honor the lives of our fallen servicemembers, I, along with other Members of Congress, began to display more proper memorials outside our individual offices. Hundreds of visitors from my district and others have stopped to view the faces of fallen Marines from Camp Lejeune displayed outside my door. It is seeing the faces of these Marines, the fathers, the mothers, the sisters, the brothers, the sons and the daughters that deeply impact these visitors. Since the media has reported the attempt to remove the Faces of the Fallen memorial displayed outside my office, I have heard from constituents and people across the country who believe these memorials should remain on display. An article published yesterday in the Jacksonville Daily News distributed in the area surrounding Camp Lejeune quoted two women who understand what it means to lose a loved one who has served our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the article for the Record. The article quotes Deborah May, a woman whose husband was killed in Iraq in 2003. She told the Jacksonville Daily News that she has walked through the hallways of the House office buildings and she supports the memorials on display. And I quote Mrs. May: ``When I go, I take my small children with me. The very least they could do is put a picture there to show my children that my husband is remembered and that this is what our government is about and our country and the freedoms we have.'' The article also quotes Vivianne Wersel, the president of the Surviving Spouses Support Group at Camp Lejeune, who said that the memorial is as much as an icon as the American flag. And I quote her: ``These servicemembers have given their lives for a conflict and something they believed in. I think that it is a reminder for those that are visiting Congress and that is what America is all about. They can walk the halls of Congress because of these young men that have given them the freedom to speak and the freedom to live.'' Last week, I wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain the history behind these memorials and to ask her support in preserving their display. I know she understands the importance of honoring the servicemembers who have sacrificed for our Nation. And I thank her for honoring my request that the House observe a moment of silence each month to remember those killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that Speaker Pelosi will agree with many of us in Congress and people across this Nation that these memorials should remain on display. And before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to show a picture of a child whose father died in Iraq for this country. This is a picture of Tyler Jordan whose father, Phillip Jordan, was a gunnery sergeant with the United States Marine Corps. And this young man is receiving the flag on his father's grave on his coffin. Four years ago, I had this picture sent to me so I could blow it up. And I want to say this to Tyler Jordan: Your daddy, Phillip Jordan, is on this poster. He was killed along with others in the year 2003. A name means a lot to those who are not here any longer. But nothing means more than for a child to come to Washington and to see his father's face outside a congressional office. So again I have great respect for Speaker Pelosi. And I hope she will agree with us that these posters should remain outside the Members of Congress' office. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. And I ask God to please bless America and help us to see the way to always remember those who died for this country and not forget them. God bless America. [From the Jacksonville Daily News, July 13, 2008] Jones Stands Ground on Lejeune Memorial in Hall Outside Office (By Molly Dewitt) A memorial honoring Camp Lejeune's fallen service members may have to come down. A ``Hallway Policy'' approved by Nancy Pelosi, house speaker and chair of the House Office Building Commission, limits the display and placement of items in hallways of the House of Representatives office buildings. That includes a display erected by Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) outside his office. Jones's Faces of the Fallen memorial consists of several easels displaying 3-by-l posters bearing the names and faces of Marines from Camp Lejeune who died while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The policy specifically prohibits easels from being placed in a hallway. ``We're not talking about posters. We're not talking about things in the hall,'' Jones said. ``We're talking about men and women that died for this country. The hallway policy, instituted on April 17, was ``developed to improve House compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act as applied to Congress by the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Life Safety Code,'' according to the policy. ``This is just typical bureaucratic malarkey,'' Jones said. No one has ever complained about loss of hallway accessibility due to the memorial, Jones said. ``I've never had anybody come in and tell me that they had trouble getting through the hall,'' he said. ``I've seen people with wheelchairs, I've seen a large number of people walk by and it's never impeded anyone from getting through the hall.'' Deborah May, whose husband Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. was killed March 25, 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, said she's walked the hallways in the House of Representatives office buildings. ``You could have a wheelchair race down those halls, because they're very wide,'' she said. She wants the memorial display to remain. ``When I go, I take my small children with me. The very least they could do is put a picture there to show my children that my husband is remembered and that this is what our government is about and our country and the freedoms we have.'' May said, tearing up. The memorial has been displayed outside of Jones' various office locations for the past five years and several years ago an initial attempt to remove them was made, he said. ``Those that write the rules just don't have the respect for those who have given their life for their country,'' Jones said. ``As far as I'm concerned this is disrespectful to those who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.'' Jones believes Pelosi will make an exception for the memorial. ``When we're having men and women dying every day and every week in Afghanistan and in Iraq--my God, the least that we can do is have people walk by and see the face of one that never came back home,'' Jones said. ``I think Ms. Pelosi will understand.'' Jones sent a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday regarding the matter. It has been suggested to Jones that a listing of the names of the fallen be placed in an entrance foyer, but he believes that to be insufficient, he said in the letter to Pelosi. Jones said, regardless of her decision, he plans to stand his ground in the situation. ``We're not going to let this be an issue, were going to do what's right,'' Jones said. ``I told them they'll have to remove me with the posters.'' Vivianne Wersel, the president of the Surviving Spouses Support Group at Camp Lejeune, said the memorial is as much an icon as the American flag. ``These service members have given their lives for a conflict and something that they believe in,'' she said. ``I think that it is a reminder for those that are visiting Congress and that is what America is all about. Whether my husband's picture is in it or not, it plays a role to remind those that walk the hall of Congress. They can walk the halls of Congress because of these young men that have given them the freedom to speak and the freedom to live.''

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, this week I received a notice from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Architect of the Capitol directing me to remove a memorial outside of my office, which honors fallen marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, because it does not comply with the new hallway policy of the House. The hallway policy states that items such as flags, equipment, furnishings, and trash must be removed from the hallways. The policy defines furnishings, in part, as easels and exhibits and posters. While the Faces of the Fallen memorial displayed outside my office does include posters and easels, I cannot believe that these symbols of service to our Nation could be considered mere furnishings. Discarded office equipment and trash are certainly a hindrance to the public who passes through the hallways of congressional office buildings. However, memorials to honor the lives of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are a welcome tribute that should not fall under the hallway policy jurisdiction. Yesterday, I wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain the history of this memorial and its importance. In 2004, Congressman Rahm Emanuel and I introduced legislation directing the Architect of the Capitol to establish an exhibit in the Capitol rotunda to honor the memory of members of the United States Armed Forces who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Our legislation was never considered. Instead, House Speaker Denny Hastert directed the construction of a modest memorial listing names of the fallen in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. Because we consider the listing of names to be an insufficient way to honor the lives of our fallen servicemembers, I, along with other Members of Congress, began to display more proper memorials outside of our own office areas. To fully appreciate the loss of a military hero, I believe it is important to see the face of what might have been the fathers, the mothers, the sons, the daughters. Hundreds of visitors from my district, and others, have stopped to view the faces of fallen marines from Camp Lejeune displayed outside my office door, and they have been impacted deeply by this memorial. Madam Speaker, on one occasion, a mother from Minnesota came into my office with tears in her eyes and thanked me for displaying the picture of her son, who had been killed while serving our Nation. I know that Speaker Pelosi understands the importance of honoring the men and women who have died in service to our country. I am very grateful that the Speaker has honored my request and the request of others that the House observe a moment of silence each month in honor of those killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. As another sign of appreciation for these military heroes, I am hopeful that Speaker Pelosi will support those of us who wish to continue displaying memorials outside of our congressional offices in honor of the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. With that, Madam Speaker, I close by asking God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform and ask God to bless the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Iraq.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I introduced H.R. 5993, the Presidential Signing Statements Act. This bill would promote congressional and public awareness and understanding of presidential signing statements. The history of presidential signing statements dates back to the 19th century; however, a September 17, 2007, Congressional Research Service report noted that U.S. Presidents have increasingly employed the statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments. In doing so, a President sometimes communicates their intent to disregard certain provisions of bills that have been signed into law. It is for this reason that I have introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act. Just as the American people have access to the text of bills that are signed into law, they should have easy and prompt access to the content of presidential signing statements that may affect how those laws will be executed. To enable a more complete public understanding of our Nation's laws, the Congress should also be able to call for the executive explanation and justification for a presidential signing statement. According to CRS, President Clinton issued 381 signing statements while in office; 70 of these statements raised legal or constitutional objections. President George W. Bush has issued 157 signing statements; 122 of these statements have contained some type of constitutional challenge or objection. Because it's reasonable to assume that future Presidents will continue this practice, Congress should act now to pass legislation to ensure proper understanding and disclosure of these signing statements. The American Bar Association recently examined the issue of presidential signing statements and appointed the Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. That task force issued a report urging Congress to ``enact legislation requiring the President to promptly submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues . . . to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement.'' The ABA also recommended that ``such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database.'' Mr. Speaker, the bill that I have introduced would require the President to transmit copies of the signing statements to congressional leadership within 3 days of issuance; require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register; third, require executive staff to testify on the meaning and justification for presidential signing statements at the request of the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee; and, fourth, provide that no moneys may be authorized or expended to implement any law accompanied by a signing statement if any provision of the law is violated. Mr. Speaker, because it's important that we preserve the provision of power in our government and public understanding of our Nation's laws, I hope many of my colleagues will consider cosponsoring this legislation, H.R. 5993. And, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform and ask God to continue to bless the families, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, in May of this year I introduced H. Res. 1183, a resolution calling for the House to observe a moment of silence on the first legislative day of each month for those killed or wounded in the United States engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am very grateful that last month the Speaker of the House initiated this moment of silence to honor America's fallen heroes. It is my understanding that the Speaker will continue this monthly observance during votes tomorrow. I again thank Speaker Pelosi for making this tribute a part of the regular order of the House. This moment of silence will serve as a solemn reminder of the more than 4,000 killed and more than 30,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a thank-you from a grateful Nation. During the month of June, 56 United States servicemembers were killed; 27 in Afghanistan and 29 in Iraq. Madam Speaker, I am sure every American shares my heart, which is heavy for the sacrifice of these fallen heroes. We are grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their courage and for their selfless commitment to duty. Again, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and her staff for continuing to make this remembrance a reality for those who have sacrificed for our Nation and for their families. We, the House of Representatives, the People's House, should never forget those who have given their life for this great Nation. May God continue to bless our men and women in uniform, and may God continue to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. And I ask God to continue to bless America.