To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5683) to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask my colleagues' support for H.R. 5683, the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Protection Act. Since 1954, a 29-foot cross has stood atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, memorializing the sacrifices of American soldiers during World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict.

This beautiful and historic memorial cross was erected and is maintained by a private organization, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, with the permission of the city of San Diego.

Over the years, the memorial association has added many elements to this memorial, including over 1,700 granite plaques commemorating individual servicewomen and men on concentric walls, bollards, pavers, and a flag pole proudly flying the American flag. The memorial cross now is fully integrated as a centerpiece of the multifaceted Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. It is without question a world-class war memorial, dedicated to all of those, regardless of race, religion or creed, who have served our armed services.

In 1989, a single plaintiff brought suit against the city of San Diego because he stated he was offended by the sight of the cross. The district court found that presence of this memorial cross violated the California Constitution's guarantee of free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference and ordered the removal of the display.

The city of San Diego, like other municipalities faced with similar court orders, endeavored in good faith to divest itself of the memorial property by selling it to a private party who could choose to display the memorial cross.

In this case, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the method of sale violated the California Constitution's ban on aid to sectarian purposes. On May 3, 2006, the district court ordered the city of San Diego to comply with the original injunction.

The city has appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has stayed enforcement of the order pending the outcome of that appeal.

In 2004, the United States Congress designated the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial a National Veterans Memorial and authorized the Federal Government to accept the donation of the memorial from the city of San Diego. The voters of San Diego passed, by an overwhelming 76 percent, a ballot measure providing for the donation. But in response to a complaint by the same lone plaintiff, a San Diego County superior court judge invalidated the citywide referendum as violating the California Constitution.

The vast majority of the citizens of the city of San Diego favor finding a way to keep the Mt. Soledad Memorial intact, even if that means giving up ownership of the parkland property on which it is located.

A 1994 ballot measure authorizing the sale of the property also passed with 76

percent of the vote, as did a 2005 ballot measure directing the city to donate the memorial property to the Federal Government.

The efforts of the city to vindicate the desires of the citizenry, however, have been stymied by one plaintiff and a few judges who find the city of San Diego's display of the decades-old memorial cross impermissible under the California Constitution.

H.R. 5683 vests title and possession of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, a national memorial honoring the war dead and veterans of the United States Armed Forces, in the United States. Once the memorial property belongs to the United States, the constitutionality of the property transfer, as well as the display of the cross as an element of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, will be determined under the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

Applying the establishment clause to the government's display of religious symbols, the United States Supreme Court has determined that displays of religious symbols on government property are unconstitutional only if their purpose is entirely religious and they include no secular components.

Most recently the Supreme Court has determined that the establishment clause analysis of passive monuments like this one is driven by the nature of the monument and by our Nation's history. In the case of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, it is surrounded by a plethora of secular symbols. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are some 1,700 memorials that make up this overall veterans memorial.

In accordance with the United States' long tradition of memorializing members of the Armed Forces who die in battle with religious symbols, the memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our Nation's war dead and veterans. Therefore, the display of the Mt. Soledad memorial cross on Federal property as part of a larger memorial is constitutional.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have many pictures of large crosses in national cemeteries and other national property or Federal property across this Nation, and we will display those at the appropriate time.

The memorial cross on Mt. Soledad is not only a religious symbol, it is a venerated landmark, beloved by the people of San Diego for over 50 years. It is a fitting memorial to all persons who have served and sacrificed for our Nation as members of the Armed Forces.

Passage of H.R. 5683 will preserve the beautiful memorial for the families of those who have died in service, for all current military servicemembers, for veterans, for the citizens of San Diego and for the Nation.

For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit letters of support from Jerry Sanders, mayor of San Diego; San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial; the American Legion; AMVETS; Veterans for Foreign Wars of the United States; Disabled American Veterans; the American Center for Law and Justice; and Robert and Sybil Martino, the parents of a soldier who gave his life in the war on terror and was honored for his sacrifice at the Mt. Soledad Memorial

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2006.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5683--Acquisition of Mt.

Soledad Veterans Memorial

(Rep. Hunter (R) CA and two cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 5683

to protect the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego.

In the face of legal action threatening the continued

existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego

have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad

Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism

should not stand in the way of the people, and the

Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in

introducing this bill. The bill would preserve the Mount

Soledad Memorial by vesting title to the Memorial in the

Federal government and providing that it be administered by

the Secretary of Defense. The Administration supports the

important goal of preserving the integrity of war memorials.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Issa), who has been a real champion in this effort to preserve the memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), a gentleman who has worked tirelessly to preserve the memorial.

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

Just to make one point, what we are doing with this legislation is taking ownership that we have already designated by law the memorial at Mt. Soledad, the Korean war memorial. We have already designated this memorial as a Federal memorial. What we are doing is taking ownership of the memorial.

So for those who don't like it and who think that it is unconstitutional, that memorial will still be intact and will be subject to any attacks that they or others may want to make on the memorial.

What it simply does is transfer title of the memorial, of the property, to the Federal Government. I think that is absolutely appropriate in light of the fact that these are veterans from all over America who are represented on those 1,700-plus little memorials that make up this big memorial. So it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate that the Federal Government, having designated this as a Federal memorial,

takes ownership of the property as a Federal memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. How much time do both sides have left?

Do we have the right to close?

In that case, we would like to reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all Members for engaging in this debate. I think it is a good one and a healthy one, and I would like to point out to all Members that preserving this memorial, that is, transferring it to the United States of America, is supported strongly by the American Legion, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, by the Disabled American Veterans, and by AMVETS and by all of their national commanders.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that there are dozens and dozens not only of crosses but of Stars of David and other religious symbols on Federal property throughout this country.

I noticed during the debate here that we are standing under a statement, ``In God we trust,'' that stands over the Speaker's chair, arguably a target for a constitutional argument that it violates separation of church and State.

Now, in answer to my friend from New York and his statement that why did we have to go and put this cross on this memorial, this memorial is 52 years ago. It is a memorial that has evolved and grown since not only the Korean war but actually right after the turn of the century, like so many memorials that we have.

Today, there is not really just one memorial. There are really 1,701 memorials in composite because there are 1,700 plaques to people that gave everything they had to the United States of America.

This last letter that I received in support of this from the parents of Captain Martino, who fell in Iraq last year, saying please do not let them tear down the memorial, reminded me to look back and look at some of the other people that are on this memorial. There is a thread of patriotism between every American alive today and those who served our country and those who fell for our country, those 619,000 Americans who died in the last century, those 2,500-plus Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and the 300-plus Americans who have given their lives in Afghanistan. There is a thread of patriotism between those people.

So for Captain Martino, who gave his life in Iraq just last year because of that, and for his family, somebody is able to teach at a synagogue or a church today or a college; because of a machine gunner in Belleau Wood early in this century, a businessman is able to operate freely in Cincinnati; and because of people who fell in the Korean war, a young couple is able to walk down the streets without being arrested in Washington, D.C.

So the freedoms that we have are combined by a thread to every single person who gave that full measure of devotion to our country, and whether we like it or not and whether the courts like it or not, the people, the families, the service people, think that those threads come together in little monuments and memorials throughout this country, not the least of which is Arlington Cemetery, but also not the least of which is 3,000 miles away on Mt. Soledad overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the 1st Marine Division embarked for those incredible fights in the island chains, taking back Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and other islands in the Axis Powers in World War II. That is a point of embarkation. It is a point where many families last saw their loved ones.

This memorial has a thread of patriotism and a thread of meaning to the people of the United States, not just San Diego, and it is fully appropriate that the United States of America, having made this memorial a national memorial, now takes ownership of the memorial.

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

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

Madam President, I recently introduced a bill to preserve the cross that stands at the center of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA, that is under attack by the ACLU to remove the cross. This bill would preserve that cross by having the U.S. Government purchase the property, as it stands, from the city of San Diego. This acquisition is the action that the U.S. Department of Justice tells us is needed to preserve this cross as a part of a memorial that has secular monuments also.

Congressman Duncan Hunter has led the effort in the House. He is a San Diego Representative, chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House. It passed 349 to 74 in the House. So we are trying to pass that in the Senate. It was called up for clearance by unanimous consent recently--I believe last night--and there was an objection from the Democratic side.

It is time for us to move forward. I don't think there will be overwhelming opposition to it, as there was not in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5683, the House bill, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I understand that. I know the Senator from Florida is a strong advocate of veterans. I am sure this represents an objection from the Democratic side somewhere else. I am urging my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is a time- sensitive matter because they have been sued. A Federal judge has ordered that, under California law, a $5,000 fine be imposed daily for failure to take this down, a symbol that has been up in the Mt. Soledad area for 54 years. Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed that penalty to give us a chance to do something like this. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I want to share a few comments about it.

In 1954, this 29-foot cross was erected by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to honor veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean war. It has stood on Mt. Soledad in San Diego, CA. The memorial now serves to honor American veterans of all wars, not just veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korea.

Since 2000, the memorial association has added significant improvements to the property. The cross is surrounded by six granite walls. They are covered with over 1,600 plaques honoring individual veterans, with surrounding small pillars and brick pavers honoring veterans groups and supporters of the memorial, and community groups. A flagpole proudly flies the American flag.

It is very important that we as a nation understand that we are free today and have the liberties we have because people have sacrificed. Our Nation is still able--although some apparently around the world may not be--to call on its people to sacrifice for a common national good, and all over America veterans groups and community action groups have created memorials since the beginning of the Republic to honor those who place their lives at risk for the liberty we are so happy to have today.

It was not until 1989 that any person challenged the legality of this monument. At that time, Philip Paulson, a San Diego resident, sued the city, claiming that the cross display was unconstitutional and violated his civil rights.

In 1991, a Federal judge agreed with him and prohibited the display of the cross on city property as a violation of the California Constitution, which guarantees the ``free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference.'' That is different from the language we have in the U.S. Constitution. So the city attempted to meet the court's demand and protect the integrity of the memorial by selling or donating the property to a private party. But Mr. Paulson challenged every potential transfer of the property to a private party, revealing that his true objection was not to the city's ownership of the display but to the cross itself--something he personally did not like.

In 1992, 76 percent of the people of San Diego, CA, showed their support for keeping the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial by voting to support ``Proposition F'' to authorize the city to transfer the property to a private nonprofit organization, so it would not implicate public matters. What is wrong with that?

After Proposition F passed, the memorial association did successfully bid for the property. It chose to keep the cross up but also made $1 million worth of significant improvements to the memorial, including the granite walls, plaques, pavers, flagpole, and American flag. Even after the improvements were completed, Mr. Paulson was still challenging the sale.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the west coast-- considered the most activist circuit of all in the country and the most reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court--found that the method of the sale violated the ``no aid to religion clause'' of the California State constitution. They transferred it to a private, nonprofit, nonreligious organization, but they said this aided religion.

I believe this is something on which we can all agree. I know the Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, have indicated they believe this memorial should remain. I think we will be able to work through these difficulties and get this legislation passed.

Mr. President, following up on the Mount Soledad Memorial legislation to deal with the court ruling that has imposed a $5,000 fine per day on the city of San Diego, a ruling stayed by Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, that ruling deals with the cross that was maintained by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on property originally owned by the city of San Diego. Some 35 years after it was placed there, someone objected, and the city sold the property to the memorial association, putting it in the hands of a nongovernmental, private entity.

As a result of that action, a lawsuit was commenced anyway and still said it was improper, and the court reached a ruling that was sort of breathtaking and said they still couldn't do it. I would note that in 1992, 76 percent of the people in San Diego voted to support keeping the cross there, and voted

in support of Proposition F to transfer the property to a private organization. But still they didn't stop, and we have continued to see the litigation go on and on. Some of it arises from the case law and the very strong constitutional provisions unique to California.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit had a ruling on it, and this is what they ruled: that the ``no aid to religion'' clause of the California Constitution prohibited California from transferring this property to a private association because any buyer who did not desire to keep the cross that was there would be required to pay for its removal, whereas an entity who wanted to buy and did not want to take the cross down would not have any expense; therefore, this aided religion. Now, that is the theory of it. I think that is not a sound analysis.

The Ninth Circuit is the most activist circuit in the country and we continue to have problems with them. They are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other circuit. Some years they have been reversed more often than all of the other circuits combined. One year it was 26 out of 27 cases the Supreme Court considered, they reversed. So that is what causes this problem.

A plan has been devised. Congressman Hunter, who represents San Diego, and Congressman Brian Bilbray, who represents the Mt. Soledad district, have worked hard to prepare legislation that would transfer it to the Federal Government, because this wouldn't be unconstitutional under Federal law. It passed in the House by an overwhelming vote of 349 to 74. We want to see that pass here. It has been called up and cleared on the Republican side of the aisle, and it is now being objected to by some on the Democratic side. So I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side to work through this thing and see if we can get it passed. It would allow the veterans to be able to continue to have the memorial on Federal property that has been in place for 54 years. It does not establish a religion. On Federal property, it is consistent with the wishes of those veterans and their families for over a half a century.

I would note we have Democratic support for this concept. I notice that in one of the news articles from the Copley News Service here, Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Senator, and one of the other Democratic Members, said:

[T]he monument is a historic memorial to our veterans and

should be allowed to stay.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the other Senator from California, has said:

[B]ecause of the history and significance of this monument

to so many veterans and San Diegans, it should be preserved.

So the Congressmen there, the people of San Diego, and the Senators from California are in favor of this. It is as a result of this complex history and the obsession by the courts, it appears, to just eliminate any reference, any expression of religion whatsoever from the public square, even if it is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution, in my view.

I believe this legislation is important and should be passed. We can make this happen. I ask my colleagues to review it. I will plan to come back and deal with it some more if we cannot get it cleared. We need to have a vote on it, if it cannot be cleared voluntarily. I hope we can avoid that.

Mr. President, I note there are other Senators here wishing to speak. We are on the drilling offshore bill in the gulf, and that is a very important piece of legislation.

I, again, note I have asked this morning that this be cleared. We have another objection. We will continue to persist with this until we get everybody's attention and maybe they can review it and see fit to clear it. I think they will. If not, I will be asking the leader to invoke cloture on the legislation.

I further add, Senator McCain has also offered legislation similar to mine. It would do the same thing. But the bill we are asking clearance on is the bill that came from the House, H.R. 5683.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. This memorial is in my district. It is a very prominent memorial, not just in the landscape, but in the history of San Diego County.

I remember as a child my father driving me past this memorial and looking up and saying this is one of the few memorials in the country that recognize the heartbreak of what went on in Korea. As a Korean veteran, he was also very much impressed with the fact that San Diegans set aside a memorial for the Korean war.

Frankly, I am shocked in a time of war, a time when our men and women are out exchanging deadly fire with the enemy, that we are talking about destruction of a war memorial. It is a war memorial dedicated to 800-plus people that never came back from the Korean war, the missing in action.

Now, in San Diego County, we have many religious symbols on public lands. We have a cross to Father Serra on Presidio Hill. We have a cross to Cabrillo, who found San Diego Harbor. We have Point Lomo. We have a county synagogue in our county park, and we have a cross on Mount Helix that was set aside by a gentleman for his wife. We are not asking to tear those religious symbols down.

All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is we have enough tolerance for a cross to Father Serra. If we can find the tolerance to save a major historical building such as the synagogue, Beth Israel Synagogue, if we can find the tolerance to have a cross for Cabrillo, my God, can't we find the tolerance to preserve a war memorial to 800,000 missing in action in Korea? This really is about common sense, common decency and tolerance.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who will find excuses to attack what they may not like, but this is not about religion; it is about the tolerance of our heritage and the memorials to those who have fought for our heritage across the board. I would just like to point out, if somebody wants to say that this is somehow a Christian conspiracy, that Phil Thalheimer, the chairman of Save the Cross, happens to be of the Jewish faith, his family survived the terrible Holocaust in Europe.

One of his biggest statements, that his family always talked about, the first thing that the Fascists wanted to do was to destroy religious symbols when his parents were trying to escape.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the State of California has many religious symbols, and we do too here. All I have to say is I don't think anybody in California or in this Chamber is asking for the cross in Father Serra's hands to be taken off that statue in Statuary Hall. The fact is that both of the statues for California happen to be someone who is affiliated with the Christian faith. But their affiliation with Christianity does not change the historical significance or the justification and the logic of us honoring him here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking today to do a very easy thing. Understand that mistakes can be made by courts; but the voters have said very clearly they do not find offense in a memorial to veterans. They do not find offense to this symbol for these people, for the people that committed so much for America.

I would ask anyone who thinks that the cross is offensive, because it is a religious symbol, to go to the memorial and walk around the wall of it. You will see every religious symbol thinkable around that memorial that have been dedicated.

If we take this cross down because someone may take offense to a religious symbol, when will they next go for the Star of David, the star or crescent? They will go after the other symbols that somebody may take offense to.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to honor our war dead, our missing in action from Korea. We should honor ourselves by showing that tolerance is not a politically correct catch term, but truly is the sign of an enlightened people, that as Moses looks down on us here, we will be proud to have him guide us on this vote.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this, and ask you, for the people of the 50th District of California, to support their will, support their veterans, and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying I appreciate the sensitivity of my colleagues on this issue who believe this bill is about veterans. I, too, have a deep appreciation of our veterans and the sacrifices they have made for our Nation and our freedoms.

If this bill were nothing more than a veterans issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about. It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others. It is about a uniquely religious symbol on public land. Make no mistake about it, this bill is not about preserving a veterans memorial. It is about preserving a 29-foot cross that sits within the boundaries of a veterans memorial, a veterans memorial that is supposed to honor all veterans.

Yet towering over the American flag, and the plaques, names, and photos of honored veterans, and I can see many of their faces in the plaques today, is a 29-foot symbol of one religion, and that is why we are here today.

A district court ruling on the memorial noted, ``Even if one strains to view the cross in the context of a war memorial, its primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians are being honored.''

I can certainly understand, Mr. Speaker, the emotion that this issue has generated. Believe me, I can understand that emotion. But as today's discussion has proven, this issue has become more about a cross than about a veterans memorial. Our focus should be on the veterans, and it should be inclusive of all veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to share the words of one of my constituents who just recently wrote me. He says, ``My father, a Bronze Star recipient for being wounded twice during D-Day, died a few years back, and I would like to pay tribute to his service to our country by purchasing a plaque to honor him.

``Mt. Soledad is one mile from where I live, and it would be the most logical choice, given its beautiful location and proximity.

``However, my father, being a practicing Jew, would be dishonored by the cross.'' That was the way he felt he would see it. ``Shouldn't,'' he asked, ``a war memorial pay homage to all who served and defended this country?''

And he continues to write, ``It is un-American to create a memorial to veterans which is not all-inclusive.

``There are many things,'' he writes, ``which could be erected as a tribute, but a cross, a crescent moon, a statue of Buddha, or a Star of David, are completely inappropriate and illegal.

``This is all about religion, because if the monument being considered were a statue of a dove or a soldier, we would not even be having this conversation.''

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue. Believe me, it would be easy to vote with the majority on this issue. But the easiest decision, or the most popular one, is not always the right one.

In the words of James Fenimore Cooper, and I quote, ``It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.''

The beauty of our Constitution is that it protects the voice of the minority, so I ask you to join me in protecting that minority today.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for passage of H.R. 5683, legislation passed by the House last week to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in Diego, CA. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, Senator Sessions. He and I both have introduced legislation similar to H.R. 5683 and I am pleased that Senator Graham also has joined us in advocating a legislative solution to this important matter.

Since 1913, a series of crosses have stood on top of Mount Soledad, property owned by the city of San Diego. In April of 1954, the site was designated to commemorate the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces who served in World War II, as well as the Korean war.

In 1989, one individual filed suit against the city claiming that the display of the cross by the city was unconstitutional and, therefore, violated his civil rights. In 1991, a Federal judge issued an injunction prohibiting the permanent display of the cross on city property. Since that time, the city has repeatedly tried to divest itself of the property through sale or donation. But the plaintiff continued to mount legal challenges to every attempted property transfer. The legal wrangling over this memorial continues today.

The Mount Soledad Memorial is a remarkably popular landmark. In fact, I had the pleasure of visiting the Memorial during the Fourth of July recess and can personally attest to the profound impression it can leave on its visitors.

It is also of great importance to the local community. On two different occasions, the voters of San Diego have overwhelming passed ballot measures designed to transfer the property to entities which could maintain the cross. Given the many years of legal disputes regarding this memorial, I believe it is past time that this issue be resolved.

The bill that we are seeking to pass would bring the Mount Soledad cross under the control of the Federal Government, and specifically, the Department of Defense and would allow for the just compensation for the property in question. It also would address the required maintenance for the memorial and the surrounding property through a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Defense and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The minimal financial commitment required in this legislation will ensure the endurance of this memorial which serves as a reminder of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who made enormous sacrifices when our country called upon them.

I understand the bill has cleared on our side, and that we are awaiting for the other side to allow its approval. I can only hope that all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and ensure the preservation of an important tribute to our men and women of the Armed Forces.