Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today is World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness, COPD, Day. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

COPD includes many conditions such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, refractory asthma and bronchiectasis. It is preventable and treatable. However, it is also progressive and there are millions of Americans that do not detect COPD in the early stages.

There are over 12 million Americans diagnosed with COPD and that number is growing. It is estimated that COPD will be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2020. Despite all this, there is lack of awareness of COPD.

That is why, as one of the founders of the COPD Caucus, I've worked to highlight the problem of COPD and am introducing today, a Resolution, with my friend and colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, designating COPD Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ocala Recycling Company, which is located in my home town of Ocala, Florida, for becoming the first RIOS certified scrap recycling facility in the world. RIOS, which stands for Recycling Industry Operating Standard, was developed by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and is an integrated standard encompassing environmental and health and safety controls into one streamlined management system.

Since 1988, Ocala Recycling's 34-acre facility has recycled everything from bottles and paper to automobiles and even washing machines. Each month, Ocala Recycling collects more than 16,000 tons of recycled goods. This unique honor and certification demonstrates the ongoing commitment of Ocala Recycling to recycle and process quality products in an efficient, safe, and environmentally responsible manner in a manufacturing environment.

Mr. Speaker, in recent floor speeches and in numerous media appearances, some Members of Congress continue to repeat the mistaken idea that a significant number of people will die automatically because of lack of access to health insurance. Now, as Franklin Roosevelt said, ``Repetition does not transform a lie into truth.'' The American people deserve better than this kind of rhetoric. The American people deserve a Congress that can work together to find solutions to our most pressing problems.

This argument is based upon a questionable study conducted by biased researchers, inaccurate characterizations, and faulty ideas. Oftentimes these Members quote from a Harvard study, which estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. What they neglected to tell you was that the two authors of this study, Dr. Himmelstein and Dr. Woolhandler, are cofounders of the Physicians for a National Health Program. And what do they support? This program supports government-backed, single-payer health coverage.

In fact, Dr. Woolhandler testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee, where I serve on the Health Subcommittee, on June 24. What did he testify on? On the absolute need, in his opinion, for a single- payer system. So he is totally biased. This report reflects his demand and his desire for a one-payer system. It's clear that this study was conducted by researchers who knew what they wanted the outcome to show before they even conducted the study.

Furthermore, this study used questionable methodology to reach its conclusion. According to analysis by John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, the authors of this Harvard study ``interviewed the uninsured only once and never saw them again. A decade later, the researchers assumed that participants were still uninsured''--this is after 10 years they assumed it--``and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.'' Obviously, that's faulty logic.

Yet, like unemployment, uninsurance happens to many people for short periods of time. It happens to a lot of people. Most people who are uninsured again regain insurance within 1 year, yet they forgot about this statistic. The authors of this study did not track what happened to the insurance status of the subjects over the decade examined, what medical care they received, or even the causes of their death. How can they make those claims?

In Massachusetts, for example--the public option here in Congress is patterned after Massachusetts. It has the highest percentage of its residents insured in the United States at 97 percent. We can see the effects of a government-run health care system by looking at Massachusetts. According to a 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins & Associates, there is a 63-day wait to see a family medical doctor in Boston, the longest of the 15 cities surveyed. This

long wait is, in large part, due to Massachusetts' health care initiative. So, instead of waiting over 2 months to see a doctor, patients are flooding the emergency room since they cannot find a doctor, and this is putting a major strain on already overburdened and crowded emergency rooms. Obviously, these supporters of the public option here in Congress don't tell you how many people would die waiting for a medical doctor.

The United States has the best health care in the world, especially in comparison to countries that have a one-payer system. In 10 of 16 specific cancers, American patients have statistically better outcomes than their European counterparts. A new report released found that up to 15,000 lives could be saved every year if patients in Britain's National Health Service received the same type of quality care that patients in the United States receive. British Government responded by saying it's going to give patients the ``right'' to see a cancer specialist within 2 weeks of diagnosis.

I could go on. There are horror stories all around this world from countries that are practicing socialized medicine. From 2001 to 2003, the British health system would only allow doctors to prescribe a treatment to preserve vision for those suffering from age-related macular degeneration after the patient had lost vision in one eye. Only after they lost one eye. A woman with epilepsy in the United Kingdom faced a 56-week wait to see a doctor. Also, in the United Kingdom, Christine Preuth, 72 years of age, was told she was too old to receive treatment for a head injury at a 24-hour walk-in center. While walking in, she tripped and fell on the pavement. Bleeding from the head, the nurse said she was not able to receive full treatment because she was over 65 years of age and her complaint was a head injury.

We need to support health care reform that provides greater access to private insurance, lowers costs, and allows people who like their insurance to keep it. The public option does not allow that. Unfortunately, Democrats believe that the government-run health care system, spending over a trillion dollars, will solve the problem. The facts in all socialized countries do not bear that out. The numbers just don't add up, and future generations will be on the hook for paying for this dangerous Democrat health care experiment.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Democrats, why did you do this in a health care bill: In section 340N, called Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program, it is going to cost the government taxpayers $283 million over 5 years because you are forgiving loans for veterinarians. So the real question I have for you folks: Why are veterinarians part of this health care bill?

When you go to section 555, Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit, you remove the eligibility for tax credits for biofuels. My question again: What do biofuels have to do with health care?

I would like the gentlelady from New York to answer why veterinarians are included in this bill in terms of loan forgiveness and why you are creating a brand new tax on biofuels when it is not necessary. In fact, this is a gift for trial lawyers as it lacks real tort reform, and also it establishes Health Czars to oversee all health plans and dictate coverage options.

If you are happy with the health care system today, then you won't be happy with the new Health Care Czar described in this bill. This is a bad bill for the American people. Vote against the rule.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this bill. The Congressional Budget Office has said that tort reform will save the Federal Government $54 billion. Instead, we get a bill today that makes a mockery of tort reform.

The Democrats add a provision that will clearly increase costs for health care and that will make it harder to recruit doctors. The new language explicitly prevents States who accept these grant funds from capping noneconomic damages or attorneys' fees even if it is current law.

Said another way, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can give such sums as he deems necessary to any States that do not cap attorneys' fees, or said another way, the bill undoes all States' tort reform.

This bill violates States' rights. It undermines their efforts at real tort reform. It allows trial lawyers to begin open season on our doctors and medical providers.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on our side of the aisle?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

We understand that the Transportation Committee under Mr. Dent has extra time and that could be allotted, if he's not using it, to our side to use it. Is that possible by unanimous consent that we could take his 15 minutes? We have some Members who actually are going to be affected by this bill, and they're going to lose jobs in their districts. They're quite passionate about this bill, and I would like to give them more than the 3 minutes that is available. So I am asking unanimous consent if it's appropriate to do that.

All right, then, so we are stuck with just 3 minutes.

Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent that we can extend our time beyond the 3 minutes?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Dent shows up on the House floor and he makes a request to give us his 15 minutes, do we need a unanimous consent? Or I will stand in and manage the time for him and then we will have 15 more minutes that we can use for these individuals who are going to be affected by this bill?

If Mr. Dent comes down, he can manage the time.

Well, just to be careful here, I think what I am going to do is I am going to take a minute, and hopefully Mr. Dent will show up and then we can have that extra time for us.

He is coming. In fact, he might be on the floor as I speak.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cites a 16 percent decline in chemical manufacturing jobs, this Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act would force people out of work by imposing needless and harmful regulations on American industries by making the production, use and storage of chemicals more expensive and burdensome with little benefit to public safety or national security.

Absent Federal preemption and a uniform national standard, this legislation will create overlapping and conflicting security requirements that could cause disruption of Federal security standards, increase government red tape, and create more economic instability. This legislation will also impose new mandates on American manufacturers as to which products and processes they use without any regard for practicality, availability or cost.

I, along with undoubtedly every Member of this body, believe that securing chemical facilities against deliberate attacks is crucial to protecting Americans, which is why, since 2006, clear and comprehensive chemical security regulations have been put in place. Removing the sunset date and making the current chemical security

regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect citizens and support our Nation's economic recovery.

I encourage all my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this detrimental bill.

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

With that, I yield that time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Madam Speaker, thanks to new drilling technologies that are unlocking substantial amounts of natural gas from shale rock, the Nation's estimated gas reserves have surged by 35 percent, according to a recent study. The study conducted by the Potential Gas Committee, the authority on natural gas supplies, has indicated that the United States possesses a total natural gas reserve of 1,836 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or enough to last almost a century at current consumption rates. This new estimate shows an exceptionally strong and optimistic gas supply picture for this country, according to the report, which is issued every 2 years by a group of academic and industry experts. The new estimate is the highest resource evaluation in the committee's 44- year history and some geologists say even this estimate is too conservative.

Much of the 35 percent increase comes from estimated gas reserves that are trapped deep in dense shale rock which drilling companies have only recently learned how to tap. Shale formations are deep underground, 6,000 feet or more, and the rock is relatively impermeable. Deep drilling is expensive, and in the past the amount of gas that could be recovered was not sufficient to justify the cost. However, new advances in production techniques have boosted all previous estimates of financially recoverable natural gas.

One shale formation that is receiving new attention is the Marcellus basin, a 400-million-year-old shale formation stretching from New York to West Virginia. That basin alone is believed to hold as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or the approximate equivalent of 80 billion barrels of oil. It's not clear, however, how much of this shale gas is recoverable.

In recent years, natural gas producers have expanded the use of a technique called horizontal drilling. After drilling more than a mile below the Earth's surface to reach the shale layer below, a drill operator then slowly steers the drill bit to one side until it is heading sideways across the shale layer. This technique allows access to more of the shale than a traditional vertical well could provide. However, even with this new technique, the density of shale rock still traps most of the gas. Producers therefore use a process called hydraulic fracturing in which a water-and-sand mixture is forced at very high pressure into the well that creates millions of tiny cracks in the rock, enabling more of the gas to be released. And while shale gas only provides a small fraction of the Nation's total gas production, many experts believe the rising supply of natural gas means it can be substituted for other fossil fuels.

Natural gas can also serve as a bridge between our current energy feedstocks and renewable energy production. According to Guy Caruso, the former administrator of the Energy Information Administration, ``natural gas has a role to play as a bridge because of the long lead time and scalability issues of renewable fuels. It's nice to have aspirations about renewable energy and efficiency, but we need to recognize these long-term goals and that we need something to get us there in the meantime.''

As an energy source, natural gas is cheaper than oil, and when burned it emits 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil and 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal on an energy equivalent basis. Natural gas is also highly efficient. Approximately 90 percent of the natural gas produced is delivered to consumers as useful energy. In contrast, only about 30 percent of the energy converted to electricity in conventional generating facilities ever reaches consumers. And with 84 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States being produced domestically, an increase in the use of natural gas would not only dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions but it would also reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Natural gas powered vehicles in use today are also helping to improve air quality by displacing petroleum powered vehicles which contribute about three-fourths of the carbon dioxide pollution found in urban areas. According to NGV America, one of out of every 10 transit buses and over 130,000 additional school buses, taxicabs, garbage trucks and other vehicles on U.S. roads are already fueled with cleaner burning natural gas. In fact, in 2008, the use of natural gas vehicles displaced almost 300 million gallons of petroleum use in the United States.

Using natural gas instead of coal or oil is a low-cost, low-emissions solution for reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources while also reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I notice that the gentleman who is advocating on the Democrats' side is not a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, at least not to my knowledge.

Under the rules of the House, is this appropriate that a Member who is not on the committee in which the bill has passed through and has jurisdiction is the advocate for the Democrats in this case?

So, if I understand the Speaker, the Chair, at his discretion, can decide who can be the spokesman for the bill even if the person is not on the committee?

A further parliamentary inquiry.

Is this customary, or is this an unusual situation? I don't need a long dissertation, just a ``yes'' or ``no'' as to whether it is customary.

So what you are saying is you can do it, but you are not willing to answer the question as to whether this is customary or not, because I've been here 20 years, and I have not seen this in the 20 years I have been here.

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

I rise in support of S. 475, the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.

I want to thank the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Burr, for sponsoring this legislation. I also want to recognize and thank Mr. John Carter of Texas for his support on this issue by introducing the companion House bill, H.R. 1182. It has 206 bipartisan cosponsors, and I am proud to be one of those.

Mr. Speaker, by its very nature, military service requires a significant sacrifice in terms of the quality of family life, especially of the spouses of servicemembers. Because servicemembers are routinely subject to transfer within and outside the continental United States, often with very short notice, spouses often find it difficult to obtain and/or to retain suitable employment.

However, military spouses are not covered by the same residency protections that are available to the servicemembers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. As a result, State laws regarding taxation, voting and ownership of property are often applied differently to the spouse and the servicemember. The SCRA allows servicemembers to determine their permanent residencies or domiciliaries. By allowing this, SCRA protects servicemembers from State taxation, property ownership, and voting laws that are not in their permanent residencies or domiciliaries.

Because the law is silent to spouses in these matters, they do not receive the same protection as servicemembers. Therefore, they can be subject to States which aggressively seek to impose residency related to income and property ownership laws, despite, my colleagues, the fact that they no longer reside in the States due to the spouses' military orders.

S. 475 addresses this issue by giving military spouses a choice to use either their current addresses where they are stationed because of their spouses' military orders or their permanent addresses to determine their residencies or domiciliaries for voting in any municipal, State, or Federal election.

Simply, the bill would allow spouses to determine their residencies in the same manner as servicemembers regarding taxation, voting, and ownership of property with respect to land-use rights on Federal owned or controlled land in the same manner as servicemembers under section 508 of SCRA.

My colleagues, this is a commonsense solution to give military spouses who have already sacrificed so much for the Nation the protection that servicemembers have when it comes to local residency laws related to taxation and voting.

So, again, I want to compliment Senator Burr and also, for the companion bill in the House, Mr. Carter of Texas, for their sponsorship of this bill; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It's my honor to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the companion bill, which is H.R. 1182, the sponsor, Mr. John Carter of Texas.

We have no further speakers.

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

General Leave

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just say how delighted I am to have the gentleman on the floor. Mr. Walz is the highest NCO that has ever served in Congress. He was a command sergeant major, I think an E-9, so it is with a great deal of respect, for anybody who has served in the military like I have in the United States Air Force, that we look to gentlemen like Mr. Walz.

We appreciate his participation on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am delighted he is here and is taking over this jurisdiction, which is important on these 13 bills.

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

I also rise in strong support of H. Res. 773, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the United States Submarine Force. This resolution honors these servicemembers who served their country during World War II in the most unique of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Boozman of Arkansas, as mentioned earlier, for introducing this legislation, and I will shortly yield to him for further remarks on this resolution.

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Filner, and also Ranking Member Buyer for moving the bill so promptly to the floor for consideration.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 773.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of the bill, Mr. Boozman of Arkansas, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

I also rise in support of this bill, H.R. 1168, as amended, the Veterans Retraining Act of 2009. It is unfortunate this wasn't part of the stimulus package, because I think this could have been handled appropriately there. We have got a CBO estimate, but it is an authorization bill, and it is not an appropriations bill. But I think this is the kind of thing that would have been very pertinent to the stimulus bill.

This would amend chapter 42 of title 38, United States Code, to provide eligible veterans with employment training assistance.

Mr. Speaker, helping our returning veterans get back into the workforce is of the utmost importance. I believe this legislation will further that cause when, because of the recession, the unemployment level, particularly among veterans, continues to reach unacceptable levels.

I will be yielding shortly to the author of the bill, Mr. Boozman, for a fuller explanation, but I would like to thank him for offering this bill, and also, as Mr. Walz had mentioned, Ms. Herseth Sandlin and the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for moving this bill through the legislative process, and also thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support.

We must do more, obviously, to help our veterans today who have been hit especially hard by these tough economic times, particularly when they come back from Iraq or Afghanistan.

So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1168, as amended.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of our time.

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

I also rise in support of House Resolution 828, a resolution recognizing October 24, 2009, the 20th chartered flight of World War II veterans through the Louisiana HonorAir, as Louisiana HonorAir Day, and to honor the invaluable service and dedication of World War II veterans nationwide.

Founded in late 2006 by T.D. Smith of Louisiana, Louisiana HonorAir provides World War II veterans an all-expense-paid, day-long trip from Louisiana to Washington, D.C., to see the World War II Memorial, the Marine Corps Memorial, and to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. I want to congratulate them for their continued service to our Nation. Their flight on October 24, 2009, was the 20th Honor Flight organized by this organization, and I am sure it won't be the last.

I have also had the experience and privilege of honoring these Honor Flights in my congressional district. We've had four of these. Last week, in fact, we have just had one, and I will recognize that Senator Dole and Senator Libby Dole also were participants at the site to meet and greet these veterans as a tribute to them.

I know that I have been inspired by the veterans who have participated in honor flights from my district in Florida, and all Honor Flight Networks around our country deserve our support. Also on October 10, 2009, the 100th chartered flight of World War II veterans aboard U.S. Airways occurred during a Louisiana HonorAir Flight out of New Orleans, Louisiana, the home to the National World War II Museum. It is estimated by the National Honor Flight Network that over 42,000 veterans will have participated in honor flights by the end of this year. So I think it's a tribute to recognize this resolution, but it's also a tribute to my colleague Mr. Cao of Louisiana for introducing this resolution and honoring this worthy organization. I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for moving this resolution so quickly, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the author, Mr. Cao of Louisiana.

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

General Leave

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

It appears this legislation has a lot of wonderful components in it. It represents about seven individual bills. It would amend title 38 of the United States Code and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to make certain improvements in the laws relating to benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

The bill, H.R. 3949, is designed to continue the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education, improve protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, improve VA outreach programs, establish a VA scholarship program, and expand eligibility for burial in a national cemetery.

Public Law 109-461 requires VA to maintain a database of veteran- and disabled veteran-owned small businesses and to validate the ownership and control any business included in the database. Implementing those provisions, VA has allowed any business that applies for inclusion in the database to be listed prior to being validated. The bill would require VA to list only those businesses that have been validated. This will prevent nonveteran-owned businesses from misrepresenting themselves as veteran-owned.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to bring to my colleagues' attention the disappointment on this side of the aisle that the amended bill we are considering drops section 102 from H.R. 3949, which was unanimously reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Section 102 would clarify that Congress intends to allow VA contracting officers at the Department of Veterans Affairs to award sole source contracts to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses on the same basis as so-called 8(a) businesses under the Small Business Act. VA contracting officers often interpret the Small Business Act as giving 8(a) firms a higher priority than service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, which we do not believe is consistent with congressional intent. All this provision would do is to give veterans a level playing field with 8(a), women- and minority-owned small businesses. So obviously we're disappointed. We're not clear why this happened, but we wanted to bring that to the attention of my colleagues.

Furthermore, service-connected disabled veteran small business owners have earned and deserve an equal level of priority for VA contracts. Unfortunately, the Small Business Committee majority and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee majority have asserted jurisdiction and are holding up this important provision to help service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and this is just a week before Veterans Day, I might add.

Service-disabled veteran-owned small business owners are men and women of all races and economic groups from all over the country. In these difficult economic times, they need the help section 102 would have provided. While I regret that this important provision isn't in the bill today, we hope to work with the Small Business Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to ultimately reach an agreement on a way to allow service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses just simply a fair opportunity to obtain sole source contracts from the Veterans Administration. Servicemembers continue to experience service contract and lease difficulties that are related to permanent change of duty stations and deployments. H.R. 3949 would clarify the member's rights and obligations under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, when terminating a service contract or lease due to military orders.

The bill also contains provisions that would authorize the United States Attorney General to initiate action in a U.S. district court on behalf of a veteran whose rights under SCRA may have been violated and allows courts to provide relief to the member, including monetary damages, and assess civil penalties up to $110,000. Unfortunately, courts sometimes fail to recognize the individual right of action that is implicit in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. As one hearing witness noted, it makes no sense to provide a right and then deny the individual the ability to enforce that right. Therefore, the legislation would also codify a private right of action to make it clear to all courts that an individual has a right to bring legal action to protect rights granted under SCRA.

Title 3 of the bill includes an authorization to allow VA to provide up to $25 million in grants to State veterans agencies and to allow these agencies to provide all or a portion of these grants to county veterans service agencies to increase outreach to veterans.

Such grants carry with them significant responsibility for the VA and State and local veterans agencies to ensure simply these funds are properly accounted for and to measure the results of this provision.

One of the least discussed injuries due to the traumatic effects of improvised explosive devices is the damage to the body's visual system. Unfortunately, these effects may be subtle at first or not occur immediately after the event. To accommodate the increasing number of visually impaired veterans whose sight has been affected either directly by combat or the effects of aging and disease, title III also would authorize the VA to grant scholarships to persons in educational programs relating to treating visual impairment and mobility issues.

Now persons receiving such scholarships would be required to commit to working within the VA health care system for a requisite number of years. The bill also stipulates conditions for repayment of the scholarships in the event that the individual fails to fulfill the conditions that are specified in this scholarship.

Finally, my colleagues, the bill would define the conditions under which the parents of a deceased veteran could be buried with the veteran in a national cemetery.

I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

If the gentleman will yield, I thank my colleague for his support, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 398, a resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift's success.

The Berlin blockade from June 1948 to May 1949 was one of the first major international crises of the Cold War and the first such crisis that resulted in casualties. During the multinational occupation of post-World War II Germany, the Soviet Union blocked the Western Allies' railway and road access to the sectors of Berlin under their control. Their aim was to force the Western powers to allow the Soviet zone to start supplying Berlin with food and fuel, thereby giving the Soviets practical control over the entire city.

The Truman administration reacted quickly by setting up a continual daily airlift that brought much-needed food and supplies into the city of West Berlin. This airlift lasted until the end of September 1949, even though the Soviet Government yielded and lifted the blockade itself on May 12, 1949. The Berlin Airlift resulted in the total delivery of 1,783,573 tons of supplies by the United States and 541,937 tons of supplies totaling 2,300,000 tons delivered on 277,569 total flights into Berlin.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution not only details a history of the Berlin Airlift, but also provides a list of all the units involved in the heroic effort at that time. The Berlin Airlift sent a clear message to the Soviet Union that the United States was unwavering in its resolve against tyranny in Europe.

I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), for introducing this legislation, as well as Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for moving the bill as quickly as they could through the subcommittee and to full consideration here on the House floor today.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 398.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a veteran, I am especially proud of my involvement with Honor Flight, which brings veterans of World War II to Washington, D.C., to see the memorial and other cherished sites.

There are obviously many memorials and monuments in Washington, D.C. However, for too long, there was a glaring omission: no memorial to the men and women who defeated the Axis powers. I am pleased that this oversight was corrected with the World War II Memorial which was dedicated in May of 2004.

Today, Honor Flight is bringing over 100 World War II veterans from my hometown of Ocala, Florida, to Washington, D.C. I will meet them this afternoon at the World War II Memorial, and we will lay a wreath at the Florida column.

Our veterans have earned our respect, and they deserve to see that their sacrifice is still honored. I am proud to join in supporting the noble cause of Honor Flight.