Floor Statements

I have had to listen as my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have made comments like, give our soldiers a chance.

This is not about our soldiers. This is about a failed policy. I think we need to go over some of the facts again, the facts that 70 percent of Americans remember but my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle seem to have forgotten.

Number one. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day.

Number two. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

They weren't there. They were never found.

Number three. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, so it doesn't matter if we reduce the number. There were none before the war.

Number four. This could have been a war against terrorists, should have been a war against terrorists, not a war against the Iraqis.

Now we have almost 4,000 dead Americans. We don't even know how many dead Iraqis. It's a terrible tragedy in our Nation. And we're making decisions to spend billions of dollars in Iraq while we tell our people, sorry, we don't have money for education. Sorry, we don't have money for health care. Sorry, we don't have money to build bridges.

Bring these troops home. And this is what we are doing responsibly. We're saying ``no'' to the President and ``yes'' to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really not sure why we're under this great rush to make these agreements, especially with a couple of countries that were named that do not have good human relations records and are not bastions of freedom. I don't understand, and I think most Americans don't understand, why we are so anxious to cut some kind of a deal, when we know that Americans are losing jobs.

I walk through my own community and I see empty factories. I look around the State of New Hampshire and I see people have lost jobs, and people shrug and say to me, the jobs have gone overseas. They may not understand exactly what the trade agreement was, but they know they lost their jobs.

And in December, once again, we'll see a factory close in New Hampshire. This is a great tragedy. We may discount 20 jobs, 100 jobs, 200 jobs here and there, but ultimately what we're saying to Americans is we're sending your jobs overseas, and we hope that you'll be retrained, and we hope that you'll be able to finance your home and finance your car and educate your children. But really, this globalization effort is in your best interest. And you know, sometimes it is.

Democrats are not against free trade. But what we are for is fair trade and making sure that our own people can maintain their lifestyle and that they'll have worker benefits and that they'll be able to retire, just like the generation before.

I'm holding in my hand an article from The Washington Post from today, and Harold Meyerson wrote, and he's so right, ``Why the Democratic rush on trade? Globalization does pose real challenges to working and middle-class Americans. Democrats should wait until they're in a position, say, in 2009, to begin to restore some security to Americans' economic lives before they return to cutting trade deals. Their electoral prospects, and the Nation's economic prospects, demand no less.''

I'm a freshman here, and I came in with a lot of other freshmen who heard across their districts the worries of middle-class, working-class Americans worried about their futures. We share that worry, and that's what's made us stand here tonight.

Why can't we have a moratorium? Why rush? Why take the chance?

Moving to other nations for cheaper labor is not fair to Americans and, in the end, will hurt our own country.

So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to these deals.

Madam Speaker, I was a military spouse, and I am the proud wife of a veteran now.

Of course, I support the veterans. I am also on the Armed Services Committee, and it is in that capacity that I have had the sad task of listening to what the administration has done to our servicemen and women and to our veterans.

We just need to say a name of a couple of hospitals to understand that the President has not honored the commitments to our troops. This democratically led Congress is honoring commitments. We have passed the greatest budget in history for our veterans.

But we have another problem with the President right now. The President wants to give our brave troops only a 3 percent pay increase, and the Democrats are leading the fight for 3.5 percent pay increase.

Why is the President refusing to give our soldiers, who are fighting for us, an increase in pay? Only the President and this administration can answer that question.

I want America to know that I am the proud wife of a veteran. I am here, along with my colleagues, to fight for veterans, and that's what we are doing every day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 162. By doing this, I rise in strong support of our men and women who deserve a pay raise.

As part of the Defense authorization, the House passed a 3.5 percent pay increase for our troops, half a percent larger than the President's budget. This means an E-4 would earn $200 a year difference in this, just $200 a year difference, but the President opposed this increase, calling it unnecessary. I don't think it's unnecessary to provide a decent wage for the brave men and women who sacrifice for our country. I once lived on military pay, and I can assure you that a decent wage is a requirement for military men and women and their families.

I find it ironic that the President thinks a pay raise for our troops is unnecessary, but he thinks it is necessary to pay contractors billions of dollars with no accountability at all. The President keeps sending our troops back again and again, and the President should at least be willing to give them a decent paycheck to do this job.

Madam Speaker, standing up for our troops must also mean standing up for their families. More than half of all servicemembers who are deployed to Iraq are married, and more than 40 percent of them have left children behind. While a half percent increase may seem small, when you're caring for a family, every little bit of support helps. This is not only the right thing to do for our troops; it's the right thing to do for our national security.

There is currently a 4 percent pay gap in pay between the military and the private sector. If we want to make sure that our armed services can recruit and retain the best, most talented, most highly qualified people, we need to provide them with comparable pay. This is especially critical now when we face new and emerging threats from around the world. And the Army began this year with the lowest number of recruits signed up for basic

training since the end of the draft in 1973.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, supporting our national security, and supporting our troops and their families by giving them the pay increase they have earned.

Madam Speaker, yesterday President Bush asked Congress to rubber-stamp his plan to spend $196 billion next year on the war in Iraq. I have to tell the President: not a nickel more for this war.

Since the beginning of this year, congressional Democrats have been trying to change a war policy from one where our troops will stay there for more than a decade, to one where we have a responsible redeployment and bring the troops home next year. The President believes it's acceptable to spend billions of dollars in Iraq, while important domestic priorities here in our own country go unmet.

While the President was crafting his $196 billion war supplemental, the Democratic House approved appropriations bills that included targeted investments in our priorities here at home: education, health care for veterans, more police on the streets, caring for American families.

Madam Speaker, as Congress begins to examine the President's latest war-funding bill, we will once again demand that the President change course in Iraq and get a responsible plan to bring our troops home within the year.

Madam Speaker, as Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to The Washington Post, it's fine to have a philosophical debate over the merits of this program, but opponents should be intellectually honest about what the bill does and does not do.

Despite this, the President and a few supporters are still clinging to a series of distortions and spin to try to mislead the public. The President keeps talking about families earning as much as $83,000. If this were true, I would have voted against this program. And as for the exception for New Jersey, the $72,000 was requested by a Republican Governor and approved by President Bush's administration. Some of the President's supporters have claimed we didn't provide a way to pay for this bill, but we did. As Americans, we want our children to be healthy and productive.

The irony did not escape me that while the President was attacking SCHIP, I was sitting in a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member. The topic was waste and fraud in Iraq, billions of dollars. Like I said, the irony did not escape me, and it did not escape most Americans.

We must override this veto.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, Americans are divided over many issues, but we are not divided over health care for our children. We are a good people, and we want our children to have health care. None of us want to see children in this country without health care; none, except for the President and his Republican supporters in Congress, that is.

Madam Speaker, the President and his supporters in Congress want to take hardworking American tax dollars and spend them, but not on the kids; no, in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, with the $190 billion, which is the President's new request for Iraq, as he turns around to the children and the hardworking families of America and says, Just don't get sick, kids.

Mr. President, that is not acceptable.

Yesterday, there was a resolution before the House which I voted for, and the reason I voted for it was because it stated it expresses our appreciation, talking about General Petraeus, for his personal sacrifices and those of his family, as well as the sacrifices of those who served in the Armed Forces and their families.

I too had a husband who served in the Armed Forces, and I was a family member, and so I supported that. But here is where I have trouble. It went on to attack MoveOn.org, saying such unwarranted attacks should be strongly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike in the House.

I, too, would like to improve the tone here in this House. I would like to see civility. But they forgot to mention something in that resolution. They forgot to condemn the Swift Boating; they forgot to condemn the comments against Senator Max Cleland and other veterans who served this country honorably as well.

I wait for a new resolution that condemns behavior on both sides of the aisle attacking all veterans from all political persuasions. Until then, I support free speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time to speak on this important issue. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2693, I rise to express my very strong support of the legislation and to highlight the dangerous philosophy under which the current administration and, consequently, OSHA has been operating.

Beside me you see in print the philosophy of ``Guidance'' over standards and regulations. Just to be clear here, guidance is great, but it's terribly dangerous when it comes at the expense of enforceable standards. It is this issue that brings us to the floor today.

This Hazard Communications Guidance, which was released just on Monday, starts with a sort of disclaimer paragraph that begins by explaining, ``This guidance is not a standard or regulation and it creates no new legal obligations.''

It concludes with, ``Failure to implement any specific recommendations in this guidance is not in itself a violation of the General Duty Clause. Citations can only be based on standards, regulations, and the General Duty Clause.''

In fact, under this administration, OSHA has issued only one significant new standard, which was on the cancer-causing chemical hexavalent chromium, and this was done under court order.

This is an incredibly dangerous philosophy for workers nationwide who rely on the health and safety precautions that OSHA is charged with ensuring. OSHA's obligation to protect these workers is certainly not met by simply enforcing current standards while ignoring emerging dangers. OSHA has responsibility to promulgate new standards and protections as soon as we learn of the hazardous nature of such chemicals as diacetyl.

To my colleagues who would say that Congress should step back and let OSHA do its job, I say gladly. We will step back when OSHA steps up and fulfills its obligation to provide meaningful health and safety protections for our Nation's workers.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will provide this meaningful protection. It does this by requiring OSHA to issue an interim standard and within 2 years to promulgate a final standard with respect to diacetyl. Our workers deserve this added safety. So do our families that use this product. This bill deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, today we will vote for legislation supporting the goals and ideals of Veterans of Foreign Wars Day.

For nearly 100 years, the Veterans of Foreign Wars has served a straightforward and noble mission, honoring the dead by helping the living and by providing friendship.

In my home State of New Hampshire, we have nearly 10,000 VFW members, another 4,500 members of the Ladies Auxiliary. I'm honored to be their representative in this House and to work with them to ensure that all of our veterans and their families receive the full support and benefits they have earned.

The VFW has been an outspoken advocate for veterans rights. It has called for expanded health care for veterans, increased funding for research into traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. It has also asked for improved access to health care and for veterans support for mental illnesses and treatment.

When I met with my veterans advisory committee last fall, one prominent member of the VFW asked me to support a sufficient budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am happy to report that the 110th Congress passed the largest budget in the 77-year history of the Veterans Affairs.

The House of Representatives has heard the call of the VFW and other veterans organizations and has passed bills to support and fund these critical issues.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

I am on the Armed Services Committee and we've had many, many hearings on this issue. It has become very clear to me that we need a plan to redeploy responsibly and to start it immediately.

First, let's go over some of the facts once again because it is a national security issue here. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day. 9/11, there were no Iraqis. But we were attacked by people who had been trained in Afghanistan in Osama bin Laden's group, and we needed to go there. We needed to go to Afghanistan. We still need to win in Afghanistan. But somehow or another we got diverted to Iraq, and we have paid the price, and the Iraqis have paid the price as well.

We are now spending $10 billion a month, that we acknowledge, in Iraq. We really don't know the cost. We borrow money from Communist China to pay for this.

I was a military spouse and so I'm feeling particularly protective of our troops. Our soldiers are exhausted. We send the same team in over and over again. This is an American problem, not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It's an American problem, and it calls for an American solution.

Let us talk about what it looks like in Iraq right now. And I have been there. What it looks like right now, and it was the independent Jones report that verified this, and I appreciated the report very much, retired General Jones and his commission. What they talked about was 2.2 million Iraqis displaced within the borders of Iraq. Every single month for the past 6 months, 100,000 Iraqis have moved. They've left their homes, their communities, their jobs, if they had jobs, and they have moved.

Now, why would 100,000 people move? Because it's not safe. It's as simple as that. We've had ethnic cleansing there. If you look at the maps that was in the Jones Commission, 2005, you could see in the neighborhoods in Baghdad that they were mixed, Sunni and Shiia living side by side. By 2007, the mixed neighborhoods are virtually gone. They've had ethnic cleansing. They have militias.

People say, well, you know, take a look at this. The Sunnis have joined with the United States to defeat al

Qaeda. No, not really. What it is is an enemy of my enemy is a friend. What has happened here is that the Sunnis have joined with the U.S. right now so they can rid themselves of their enemies.

We estimate that al Qaeda is maybe 7 to 10 percent of the violence there. But the reality is that most of this violence is still a civil war. It comes from within and it has not gotten better.

We know that 95 percent of the children are showing terrible signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome disorder. We know that they have dirty water. We know that they have 2 hours of electricity if they're lucky.

We know that in every way to measure standard of life, it has declined. Why are we still there? That's the question that all of us are asking. Why are we still in Iraq? And why does the President have a plan that says, stay. Stay for how long? Just stay. That is not acceptable to the American public anymore.

I yield back to you and I thank you very much for bringing this to the floor today so that we can tell the American people what has really happened, what we have heard from independent commissions, and what the reality is for the people of Iraq and the people of the United States.

I would like to add one more point which is important. Let's look at the American benchmarks and let's ask where America is now. Where are we on education? Where are we on health care? Where are we on jobs? Where are we on infrastructure? We have poured so much money into Iraq. What about American benchmarks?

Thank you, Congresswoman.

I am holding in my hands a report to Congress from September 6, 2007 called ``The Independent Commission Security Forces of Iraq.'' This is retired General Jones. They did an absolutely wonderful job, nonpartisan, and I'm very pleased to say that it seems incredibly accurate and fair in all respects.

Here is a concern, or one of the many concerns that I have, and I just want to read a couple of lines and talk about it. It says, Iraq's central government in Baghdad, and this is page 39, does not have national reach in terms of security, nor does it have a monopoly on use of force, a defining characteristic of a functioning nation state. Militias continue to play a prominent role and are seen by American and Iraqi officials alike as posing almost as significant a threat to Iraqi stability and security as al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now, isn't that fascinating? We hear them talk about al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq on 9/11, 2001, and yet we have militias roaming around and there is very little talk about that.

Now, as this report states, if you have militias, it means that the Iraqi Central Government is not in control of their streets. This is where we have our soldiers, in the middle of a civil war. And this is the reason that we've had ethnic cleansing and the other problems that we're having.

I want to talk about the Iraqi political establishment for a moment. Our troops have done everything they've been asked to do. They are guarding the streets. And yes, violence has gone down where our troops are, and it's a great credit to our troops, but I can tell you right now that if you put 50 policemen and women on a corner of any major city in America, or anywhere, crime would go down because these forces do a terrific job, but it doesn't mean that you've changed the hearts and minds of the people, the criminals. What we have here is an Iraqi Government that has not stepped forward. And so we are relying on our troops to not only control the violence in Baghdad, but also to run everything.

The Iraqi Government, the Parliament, wanted to take 2 months off this summer in the middle of this crisis. When the White House, Tony Snow, was asked about the 2-month vacation, he said, well, it's 140 degrees there. And somebody said, well, aren't our troops in 140 degrees as well?

The Iraqi Parliament also, more than half of them, signed a petition asking the United States to leave Iraq. Now, this is not leadership. Our troops have waited for years for Iraqi leadership to step forward and run their country.

We cannot ask our troops to not only be the police there, be the cop on the beat there, but also to be the politicians there. If the Iraqi Government will not, cannot, step up, we have to finally say we have to step down. It has been just too long.

So picture that, what it is like, and you will understand why 100,000 Iraqis have been leaving every month and why there is more than 2 million people who are now out of the Iraqi borders. They have lost their middle class. They have lost anybody who could help the society. They have fled. And you understand why, when you think about militias and you think about the lack of Iraqi political leadership. You didn't hear very much about that coming out of the White House. Ask them to name the Iraqi politicians, the leaders, who are going to take over, and ask when. Because they can't say when. They can't name who is going to take over. We cannot leave our troops there indefinitely until the Iraqis decide to find political reconciliation.

That is the problem. As long as we have our troops there, yes, we can tamp down the violence where our troops are. But we must have a government. That report shows that they have militia wandering around and that the Iraqi Government has not stepped up to the task. We are in our fifth year, Americans know that, our fifth year of our treasure and our blood of our people. It is time to stop.

I would also like to point out that this really is a national security issue for the United States of America. General Peter Pace was asked if he was comfortable with the ability of our Nation to respond to an emerging world threat. He paused and he said, ``No, I am not comfortable.''

We have our troops bogged down in Iraq. We do have enemies around the world, no question about it, but our military is strained. We know that the troops could not stay at this pace past March anyway, so it is natural that the President would call to bring back some of the troops in March. It is not really progress. It is just acknowledging that we have to have them back. But here is the issue: If you know there is a burglar in your neighborhood, the first thing you do is you lock your own door. We didn't do that. We went to Iraq instead of locking our own door. We didn't even pass the 9/11 recommendations. The 110th Congress had to take care of that business. So, finally, we are going to be inspecting cargo from airplanes, and we are going to be inspecting cargo that comes from overseas, and we are going to inspect 100 percent of it after a period of time. That should have been done immediately. We should have beefed up homeland security, locked our doors, so to speak, and then worked with other nations to catch terrorists. They were ready.

On 9/12/01, we had the world's sympathy and empathy. They were ready to work with us to catch these horrible terrorists. Instead, we went to Iraq, and now our brave troops are bogged down there. The Iraqis have suffered enough. It is time to bring them home responsibly and to start looking at building up our troop strength again so that we can respond to anyplace around the world that we might need to be.

Mr. Speaker, we now know what the President's plan for Iraq is: it's just stay. Stay for how long? He doesn't know. We don't really have a plan, but we do know that we have not succeeded in Iraq. In spite of the efforts of our brave soldiers, in spite of the 10 to $12 billion a month that we have spent, in spite of all of our efforts, we have not succeeded.

Now, if you look at the independent nonpartisan reports on Iraq, you find that 100,000 Iraqis are moving from their communities every single month. Why would 100,000 Iraqis move from their homes, from their schools, from their lives? They're moving because they're not safe.

We have militia roaming around. We've had ethnic cleansing in Baghdad. If you look at the maps of the neighborhoods, 2005 and now 2007, you realize that the Iraqis are not living together any longer. We have ethnic cleansing.

We also know that the Iraqi Parliament, more than half of the Iraqi Parliament, signed a petition asking Americans to go home.

We also know that the Iraqis wanted to take a 2-month vacation in 140-degree weather while our troops were struggling. It is time to bring our troops home and look at American benchmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 326) commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 326 commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial right here in America's capital city. I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for bringing this measure before the House.

In capturing the tremendous sacrifice of our servicemembers, this memorial has helped our Nation heal from the losses our communities suffered throughout the Vietnam war. Maya Lin, the wall's designer, created the monument in such a way as to ``convey the sense of overwhelming numbers while unifying those individuals into a whole.'' The Vietnam Memorial is a testament to the ultimate sacrifice those who serve in uniform have made in defense of our Nation.

Over 4 million people visit the memorial each year. No one leaves unaffected by the experience. House Resolution 326 is our way, as Members of the United States Congress and citizens of this great Nation, of taking an important moment to pause in reflection and in gratitude for the freedoms we share today because of the contributions of our brave men and women in uniform in Vietnam.

Let us also take this opportunity to recognize those who are serving us on the front lines of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and other hotspots around the world. Their sacrifice and devotion to duty continue in today's warriors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 443) recognizing the service of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers during the Korean War, honoring the people of Puerto Rico who continue to serve and volunteer for service in the Armed Forces and make sacrifices for the country, and commending all efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 443, recognizing the service of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers during the Korean War, honoring the people of Puerto Rico who continue to serve and volunteer for services in the Armed Forces and make sacrifices for this country, and commending all efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 65 Infantry Borinqueneers. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for bringing this measure before the House.

In 1908 the United States Congress directed that a unit be established and comprised primarily of individuals from Puerto Rico, which was then renamed in 1920 as the 65th Infantry Regiment. Our brothers and sisters of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers fought valiantly and gave their lives during the Korean War and the two World Wars.

Since 1917 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States and home to almost 4 million U.S. citizens. During the Korean War, Puerto Rico lost a disproportionate number of servicemembers relative to the population of the island as a whole. Eight soldiers of the 65th Infantry Regiment received the Distinguished Service Cross, and 129 were awarded the Silver Star for their heroism during the Korean conflict.

House Resolution 443 highlights an important group of servicemembers who have helped forge the foundation of the freedoms that we enjoy today. The 65th Infantry Borinqueneers are to be recognized for their tremendous sacrifice. We should not forget those who are serving today in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

The people of Puerto Rico and all Americans can be proud of the tremendous contributions these men have made to the defense of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 443.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 604) expressing the Nation's sincerest appreciation and thanks for the service of the members of the 303rd Bombardment Group (Heavy) upon the occasion of the final reunion of the 303rd Bomb Group (H) Association, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 604, expressing the Nation's sincerest appreciation and thanks for the service of the members of the 303rd Bombardment Group (Heavy) upon the occasion of their final reunion. I thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) for bringing this measure before the House.

Our history is rich with heroes who have risen above and beyond the call of duty in service to our great Nation. The American flag billows proudly above this Capitol building, and even more boldly behind your seat, Mr. Speaker, due to the extraordinary heroism of our servicemen in times of war.

The 303rd Bombardment Group is certainly part of this legacy. Two 303rd Bombardment Group airmen, Technical Sergeant Forrest Vosler and First Lieutenant Jack Mathis, were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, four were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, 33 were awarded the Silver Star, approximately 1,200 Purple Hearts were awarded for those killed or wounded in action, and over 5,000 were listed as missing in action during World War II. While these numbers make me proud to be an American, statistics alone cannot begin to comprehend the tremendous service they have done for all of us.

The members of the 303rd Bomb Group Association have provided opportunities for 303rd veterans, families and friends to meet, and have perpetuated the memory of the 303rd Bombardment Group comrades lost during World War II, since the organization was founded in 1975.

And while the 303rd Bomb Group Association is meeting this week for the final time, the United States House of Representatives and our great Nation can express its sincerest thanks for their service by carrying forth the mission statement of the 303rd Bomb Group Association and making timeless the memory of their successes and sacrifices by memorializing their history in law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 604.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.