Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Florida's most distinguished natural and cultural treasures. Weeki Wachee Springs will be

celebrating its 60th anniversary from July 27-29. This famous attraction is a rich part of Florida's heritage, showcasing 60 years of one of a kind ``mermaid'' shows, as well as outdoor recreational opportunities, including river cruises, nature trails, canoeing, kayaking, and a water park.

Weeki Wachee got its start as a Florida phenomenon in 1946, when Newton Perry, a retired World War II Navy diving instructor, recognized the site's potential as a unique tourist attraction. The Seminole Indians gave ``Weeki Wachee'' its name, which means ``little spring'' or ``winding river'' in their language. The spring, which is so deep that the bottom has never been found, bubbles with crystal-clear water from the pristine Floridan Aquifer and maintains a year-round temperature of 72 degrees.

Perry invented a method of breathing underwater through a tube that allowed performers to move freely without cumbersome SCUBA equipment. He built a theater into the limestone, submerged below the surface of the water, so viewers could look right into the natural beauty of the ancient spring. The first show at the Weeki Wachee Springs underwater theater featured women dressed as mermaids performing underwater synchronized ballet. It opened on October 13, 1947, one day before Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier.

When Weeki Wachee was purchased by ABC in 1959, its popularity began to skyrocket. More than half a million people came to visit the spring each year, and girls came from as far a way as Tokyo to audition as mermaids. Celebrities including Don Knotts, Esther Williams, Arthur Godfry and Elvis Presley all came to Weeki Wachee.

While the park continues to attract thousands of visitors each year, Weeki Wachee will forever be remembered as one of Florida's first and finest attractions. Weeki Wachee is a showcase of the superb natural beauty and friendly atmosphere that continues to attract so many to our great State.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule. It is not because of the final product, but the way in which the rule actually came about.

I have worked closely with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and I know that he is a fair individual, and actually in committee he supported several of my amendments and gave us the opportunity to have that vote be held.

It is no secret that we have an immigration crisis facing us in America. It is also no secret that Americans are angry. Like most Members, my office was flooded when the President and the Senate attempted to ram another amnesty immigration program down our throats.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 56 percent of Americans surveyed support an ``enforcement only'' approach to immigration reform and 44 percent of Americans opposed the Senate's amnesty plan.

Yesterday my colleagues and I offered several amendments that would bring accountability to the section 8 housing program under HUD. Not surprisingly, the majority broke their promise of openness in the House and yet again did not allow them to be considered by Members today.

Americans work hard for their money and Americans are also very generous. We are not afraid to help fellow Americans. A roof over your head is one of the most basic human needs, and we are not afraid to spend tax dollars to help those that cannot provide for themselves. But what Americans refuse to do is give up their hard-earned tax dollars to people who sneak into our country illegally. The funds included in this bill must, let me repeat that, must only go to those who are here legally working in this country and paying taxes.

However, the amendment my friend Mr. Price and I introduced would have ensured just that: Those receiving funds, taxpayer funds under section 8 are here in this country legally. Our amendment would have brought commonsense accountability to a program that clearly runs short of that right now. Yet the majority won't even allow Members to consider that amendment on the floor. What are they so afraid of?

It is not even a full year into the majority's new regime, and I am already tired, and so are my constituents, of broken promises. I know Americans are also. If other Members are tired, then they should join us in voting against this rule that blocks these commonsense amendments like those of my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Tom Castriota, a marine who has served his country with honor and distinction for nearly 3 decades. Having retired from the Marines after 26 years in service to his country, Mr. Castriota was so moved by the attack of September 11 that he volunteered to re-enter active military service and join his fellow soldiers and help wage the Global War on Terror.

Following his return to the Marines, Lt. Col. Castriota was first assigned to Tampa's U.S. Central Command Post. Last October, he was notified that he was being called up for a six month stint in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While in Iraq, Lt. Col. Castriota served as part of the Multi-National Security Transition Command. His duties included helping to coordinate the training of the Iraqi soldiers and police recruits, as well as a twice-weekly briefing that he gave to general David Petraeus on the progress of his training.

When he is not serving his country as an active duty member of the Marines, Lt. Col. Castriota and his family own a Chevrolet dealership in Hudson, Florida. working with his wife Anita, who is the daughter of a marine, and his 2 children Alex and Chrissy, Lt. Col. Castriota has built a second career helping area residents find the perfect car. True leaders in the Pasco County community, the Castriota family has worked hard to give back to Hudson and help make their neighborhood a better place to live and work.

Madam Speaker, it is military service members like Lt. Col. Castriota that help make our military the finest fighting force in the world. This Congress congratulates Lt. Col. Castriota for his outstanding sense of volunteerism and thanks him for once again joining the battle for freedom around the world. His story should serve as an inspiration to every American and each Member of the House and Senate.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.

I think Americans are disappointed. I think with the change in leadership in the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate, the people thought things were going to be improved. Kind of like when you buy a new container of detergent, it might say New and Improved. Well, I have to say, it's not improved and it certainly isn't new.

We were promised transparency. As you know, the gentlelady from North Carolina, if you recall, we had some language about making all earmarks transparent when we were in charge, when the Republicans were in charge. Well, a week and a half ago on this very floor, we found out that that promise of transparency was broken and the promise of transparency in earmarks just didn't happen. As a matter of fact, we were going to be asked to vote on a bill that we had no idea what the earmarks were going to be in. We would be told that when it came back from conference.

Well, that clearly, as my momma used to say, was buying a pig in a poke. You didn't know what you were getting and it was a very bad public policy. One of the Democrat promises was that they were going to promote smart and tough security. Let me read a direct quote: ``Democrats are committed to protecting our country with real security initiatives that are smart and tough,'' then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release on October 25, 2006, before the November elections.

Well, what we find is that the Democrats brought legislation to the House floor supporting the transfer of responsibility for a critical national security program to, of all entities, the United

Nations. And then 230 Democrats voted against a Republican motion to recommit which would have prohibited this transfer of responsibility and made clear that America's national security is and should be the responsibility of America alone. That happened to be a vote on January 4 of 2007.

In the Fifth Congressional District in Florida, which I represent, and I know, Ms. Foxx, in your district, too, protecting of our borders is so important. Let me read a quote from then Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. The quote was made November 25, 2006: ``I believe there is virtually unanimous agreement in the Congress that we must secure our borders and know who is entering our country.''

Contrast that with May of 2006, and then what we have is a total change on June 15, 2007, when, just 6 months after the Democrats took power in the House, 214 Democrats voted against a Republican proposal to provide funds necessary for the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional and physical barriers, road lighting, cameras and sensors, so that we could make our borders secure. This certainly is not the secure U.S. border promise that was made before the election.

The Fifth Congressional District has a large number of retirees in it and people who are relying on Social Security. They truly care about the future of our country and the absolute need to be very careful about protecting future generations.

Let me read a quote that was made and that is that they were going to reform entitlement spending to protect future generations. But here's where the broken promise came in. The Democrat budget actually puts off tough and divisive decisions. Democrats did not include proposals to control the growth of entitlement programs that are projected to swamp the rest of the budget. Again, another broken promise.

While you have a list there of 100 broken promises, whether it's the transparency issue or whether it is reforming entitlement spending, or let me end with one that is so important to my district and that is Social Security and the Social Security trust fund. I would like to read a quote, and this was in March 2007 by a member of the Democrat Party from New Jersey. He said, ``We will not borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund and from other creditors around the world.''

However, when there was a Republican proposal to prohibit increases in the authorization spending levels if the Social Security surplus has been spent the previous year, that same Member from New Jersey voted to virtually break his promise. That's what Americans are concerned about. That's exactly why the rating of Congress is down to 14. I think it's a combination of thus far the very, very serious broken promises and what the Senate was about to do on immigration.

Americans are very disappointed, and I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for bringing this issue to the House floor. It's important that we remind the citizens, Republicans, Democrats and Independents of the broken promises that have only happened the first 6 months of the Democrat control of this House.

I thank the gentlelady for bringing this very important issue up.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to Mr. Peterson's amendment to allow exploration within 25 miles of the coast.

It was just around this time last year when the Florida delegation finally, most of us agreed to go along with the negotiation that had been hammered out which protected the gulf coast.

The gulf coast in the Tampa Bay area, which Mr. Young and I both represent, was protected some 230-some miles where there would not be any exploration for gas or oil. Why? Because of several issues. Number one, military mission line, where regularly they are doing military exercises. Very, very important area to protect. Then eventually some of us who are very, very reluctant, but who realize that our friends on the other side of the aisle and even some people on this side would never go for anything in ANWR, so we can't stick our heads in the sand, so we agreed to 230 miles out.

But let me tell you that what we are asking for is a disaster here, a disaster in many ways. Will people ever believe us again? We said we came to an agreement that had protected the coast and given some protection to the east coast. Now we have an amendment here which shortens that area to 25 miles.

I represent eight counties; four of them are coastal counties along the gulf coast. Many of them have been hit by hurricanes. To have this kind of exploration this close to the shore, not only in Florida, but along the gulf coast, is asking for trouble. It's a bait-and-switch. It absolutely is a bait-and-switch. Those of us who agreed last year to have some exploration did not agree to the 25-mile amendment. And I guess if you can't get 25 miles, they will try for 100 miles. That's not what we agreed to do our share of exploration for domestic energy sources.

My colleague from south Florida was absolutely right about the tourism and fishing industry that would be affected, but also the very, very fragile habitat that exists, and one that we want to protect. Now, some would say Republicans aren't that concerned about the environment, but I, as somebody who received the Sierra Club award, I disagree. Republicans do care about the environment. That's one reason why we set up buffer zones that were certainly far greater than 25 miles.

And let me express a great fear: if we do this for gas, oil certainly will follow. And, you know, I just don't remember there being a lot of tourism in ANWR. But you're affecting States where there is a lot of tourism.

You know, the citizens' confidence in Congress is at an all-time low. If we do this bait-and-switch as suggested in Mr. Peterson's amendment, it will be down to zero.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Peterson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to cut the pay raise that is included in the bill for the National Endowment For the Arts.

Mr. Chairman, we have many problems facing us in Congress today. We have a Federal deficit of $8.8 trillion. We still haven't built the fence along the border, and we still don't have enough people out there protecting our borders. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing forward bills that would amount to the largest tax increase for Americans in American history.

As a matter of fact, in my district, in Florida, it will mean about a $2,400 tax increase, not this year, but in the future years, in 2 years, when some of the tax breaks expire. That's $2,400 more that my constituents will have to pay.

And now we hear that they want to fluff up the National Endowment For the Arts by almost $36 million more. That's more than last year. This is the same public tax dollar funded National Endowment of the Arts that boasts that they are the largest funding organization for arts in the United States, using our tax dollars, of course.

This is the same NEA that provided a grant for the production of the Dinner Party, which is a 140-foot triangle depicting the imagined genitalia of 39 historically important women, including Susan B. Anthony and Georgia O'Keefe.

This, Mr. Chairman, is the same NEA that provided a grant for a program entitled, ``Not For Republicans,'' which addressed several topics, including sex with Newt Gingrich's mom. To the average American taxpayer, this is not art. This is smut.

The National Endowment of the Arts has funded works of art, and I put ``art'' in quotes, that are so controversial, offending and downright disgusting that, quite honestly, I could not mention them on the House floor.

And for their work in promoting this smut, the leadership, the Democrat leadership, now wants to reward the NEA by giving them a $36 million raise over last year and a $32 million raise over what the President has requested. That's right. The NEA was funded at $125 million last year, the President requested $128 million dollars; yet in this bill, in the Interior Appropriations bill, we see that the NEA will be funded at $160 million dollars.

How many Americans get almost a 40 percent pay raise for offending most of the Nation? This is the case of rewarding bad behavior with tax dollars.

My amendment strikes only the increase included in this bill and brings the funding back in line with the President's request of $128 million. Again, let me remind my colleagues that this is a $3 million increase if we go back to the President's level.

Mr. Chairman, Americans need art in their lives and I recognize art is subjective enjoyment. Whenever possible, back in my district, I support the arts, but I do it with my dollars, not with tax dollars, where the average American does not agree with some of the ``art'' that is being funded with their tax dollars. Americans are tired of wasteful Washington spending and are unwilling to pay for this so-called art with their tax dollars.

Don't reward the National Endowment for polishing trash and call it art. Vote in favor of my amendment to bring NEA funding back to the President's level of $128 million. Again, that is even $3 million more than last year.

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

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

I believe that our constituents would much rather support the arts with their dollars instead of channeling this additional increase through Washington where Lord only knows of that dollar that gets up sent up here how much actually goes back into the District for the arts. Yes, my district has received some funds. But, additionally, they don't want to have the concurrent tax increase that goes along with the increase in spending.

The amount that the President has requested certainly is sufficient for the National Endowment for the Arts, and I encourage the Members' support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the gentlewoman from New York did not mean to misquote me. I did not say my district did not receive very much money. I said my district does receive some money, but I did not say that they did not receive very much money. I just wanted to make sure that the record was corrected on that.

And, yes, thankfully, I do have an arts community that is alive and well. And I have communities that will support that arts community. But what we don't want to see is digging ourselves further in the ``let's just pile more money on various agencies'' model, which only will drive up our deficit. That was the point that I was trying to make.

If my constituents have a choice of maybe encouraging their friends and neighbors to go to an event to increase the revenue, but we are sending the money up here to Washington only to have it sent back with this increase. They would prefer to have that money generated at the local level.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in support of H. Res. 189. I have a large number of Vietnam veterans in my district. Several years ago, I had a commemorative coin struck that I gave to the Vietnam veterans. I presented it and called it a long overdue welcome home event. There weren't too many dry eyes as the coins were presented. We need to remedy that, and certainly having a Welcome Home Vietnam Vets Day as this bill calls for is long overdue.

The one thing that I ask Vietnam vets to please always do is when our young men and women are returning today from battle, that they always help the community to welcome them back, because no one would like to be treated the way that many Vietnam vets were treated.

This is a great resolution, and it is long overdue. I certainly support finally having a Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2139, the Manufactured Housing Loan Improvement Act of 2007. It is virtually identical to legislation that passed the House last year, only it was called the act of 2006, and it passed by 412-6. Obviously, it was a very popular bill.

The bill that we are considering today would modernize the FHA title I manufactured housing loan program, which insures loans for manufactured homes owned on leased land, for lots used to site manufactured homes, and for a combination of manufactured homes and lots. The program is different from the insuring of manufactured homes under title II of FHA, in which the manufactured home is sited

on land also owned and mortgaged under the loan.

As the gentleman from Indiana stated, in 1992 some 3,000 loans were insured under the FHA title I manufactured housing loan program. However, last year this number dropped to around 1,500 loans. Clearly this legislation seeks to address the factors that have been widely cited as the reasons for the steep decline in the number of insured loans. These include vague underwriting standards; a portfolio cap on title I loans; a guarantee that is not sufficient for acceptance in the secondary market; loan limits that have not kept up with inflation, and, actually, they haven't been adjusted since 1992; and a resulting reduced private sector loan origination participation.

During the Financial Services Committee markup of this legislation, Congressman Bachus offered and the committee accepted wording that would authorize the GAO to assess how the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development utilizes the FHA manufactured housing loan insurance program and other programs administered by HUD to mitigate the risk to manufactured housing residents and communities resulting from tornadoes.

Every year, an average of 800 tornadoes sweep across the United States, resulting in more than 80 deaths, more than 1,500 injuries and millions of dollars in property damage. One of nature's most powerful and violent storms, large tornadoes often record winds with speeds in excess of 250 miles an hour.

Florida and parts of my district were ravaged by these tornadoes earlier this year, which reminded us that natural catastrophes can strike with little warning, forcing communities to confront a loss of infrastructure and, unfortunately, sometimes a loss of life.

Many residents of homes have a place to go in the event of a tornado, whether it is a basement or an interior room. Manufactured housing residents do not have a basement and they often do not have an interior room. Despite rapid advances in tornado warning technology, residents of manufactured housing communities often do not have adequate access to proper shelter.

That is why the House passed the Tornado Shelters Act, which was signed into law in 2003. That bipartisan bill authorized communities to use community development block grant money to construct or improve tornado-safe shelters located in manufactured housing park areas.

Unfortunately, it is not used enough. Often in the face of a tornado threat, it is said we can do two things: pray and prepare. Pray it won't happen again and prepare for the next line of twisters.

While the residents can pray, our government and this Congress can do much to help them prepare.

As we improve the title I manufactured housing loan programs, I hope we can do everything in our power to ensure that residents of manufactured housing communities have adequate protection from natural catastrophes such as tornadoes. H.R. 2139 will facilitate greater access to manufactured housing, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1056, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act that my colleague, Congressman Dennis Moore, introduced. This bill is almost identical to the bill I introduced last year and the one which he referred to that passed the House by 417-0.

For States like Florida and many others on the gulf coast where commercial insurance has been difficult or impossible to come by, the only recourse is to turn to the surplus lines or nonadmitted market. Certainly streamlining the rules in this market is crucial to the consumer and any State that is facing an insurance crisis. Unfortunately, today, the regulation of the surplus lines market is fragmented and cumbersome. Insurers and brokers who want to provide insurance across State lines are subjected to a myriad of different State tax and licensing requirements. Oftentimes these regulations will conflict, making it impossible for one company to comply with all of them.

This situation leaves policyholders underinsured and with even less of a choice in providers. Moreover, most of the companies that purchase insurance in the nonadmitted market do so frequently. These sophisticated commercial entities are large corporations that employ educated risk advisers with a thorough understanding of the market and their risk exposure. Yet in most States, including my home State of Florida, these companies are required to shop around in the admitted market where they know they will be denied coverage, they know that this has happened before and it will happen again, they know they can't get it.

They have to do this before they are permitted to shop in the surplus lines market. This practice is useless and cumbersome and it only adds to the cost for the policyholder. H.R. 1056 solves this quagmire, giving policyholders alternatives to restrictive markets.

The bill also acknowledges another program in the insurance industry, this time on the reinsurance front. Over the years, some State regulators have been taking it upon themselves to throw out arbitration agreements between reinsurance providers and primary carriers. These are contractual agreements decided upon by very sophisticated parties on both sides of the transaction in order to settle disputes without having to go to court. If these agreements are valid in one State, they should be valid in all accredited States. Therefore, H.R. 1056 prohibits States from voiding established, contractual arbitration agreements between reinsurers and primary companies.

Obtaining insurance already has its obstacles. Adding 49 other States' speed bumps of inefficient State rules does not help. And with reinsurance rates rising at crippling numbers, companies should be encouraged to stay out of the courts and follow their own arbitration agreements. Our bill provides commonsense solutions to the nonadmitted and reinsurance market and it enjoys broad support. I thank Mr. Moore for sponsoring this important insurance reform with me.

I urge the Members of the House to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any additional speakers on this bill, but I wanted to take a moment to indicate that it is such a pleasure to work with Mr. Moore, the gentleman from Kansas. He always looks at things in a very bipartisan manner and always with the end goal in mind of helping the consumer. I certainly appreciate that. I know that the policyholders out there do. I would certainly urge passage of this very important bill, H.R. 1056.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank you and Chairman Filner for bringing these four suspensions to the floor today. These bills pay tribute to the extraordinary valor and fidelity displayed under fire by three soldiers and one Marine by naming VA facilities in their honor.

In earning the Medal of Honor, Charles George, Ernest Childers, Oscar Johnson and Raymond Murphy were bestowed this Nation's highest award for valor in combat. Generally presented to its recipients by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, the medal is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

At a time when corrosive influences in our society concern many Americans, the intrepid self-sacrifice of these men, two of whom were Native Americans, endures untarnished. It is, therefore, entirely fitting that we name, in their honor, four Department of Veterans Affairs facilities that represent the fulfillment of this Nation's obligation to those who serve us and who, through their sacrifices, ensure our continued liberties.

The bill before us today, H.R. 366, was introduced by Congressman John Sullivan, and would honor Ernest Childers, a Native American and Army veteran who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his valor in combat in Italy during World War II. I appreciate the initiative and hard work of my colleague from Oklahoma that he took in bringing this bill to the House.

A Native American of the Creek Nation from Oklahoma, Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 to earn extra money while attending the Indian school in North Central Oklahoma. Childers deployed from Fort Sill, Oklahoma to Africa to fight the Axis in World War II.

Second Lieutenant Childers, a member of the 45th Infantry Division, was cited for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in action September 22, 1943 at Oliveto, Italy. Having already suffered a broken foot, he single- handedly captured enemy gun positions after ordering his eight troops to cover him with fire. Displaying exceptional leadership, initiative, calmness under fire and conspicuous gallantry, Lieutenant Childers served as an inspiration to his men.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the complete text of Lieutenant Childers' citation award be included in the Record.

The President of the United States in the name of the

Congress takes pleasures in presenting the Medal of Honor to

Ernest Childers.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 45th

Infantry Division. Place and date: At Oliveto, Italy, 22

September

1943. Entered service at: Tulsa, Okla. Birth: Broken Arrow,

Okla. G.O. No.: 30, 8 April 1944.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk

of life above and beyond the call of duty in action on 22

September 1943, at Oliveto, Italy. Although 2d Lt. Childers

previously had just suffered a fractured instep he, with 8

enlisted men, advanced up a hill toward enemy machinegun

nests. The group advanced to a rock wall overlooking a

cornfield and 2d Lt. Childers ordered a base of fire laid

across the field so that he could advance. When he was fired

upon by 2 enemy snipers from a nearby house he killed both of

them. He moved behind the machinegun nests and killed all

occupants of the nearer one. He continued toward the second

one and threw rocks into it. When the 2 occupants of the nest

raised up, he shot 1. The other was killed by 1 of the 8

enlisted men. 2d Lt. Childers continued his advance toward a

house farther up the hill, and single-handed, captured an

enemy mortar observer. The exceptional leadership,

initiative, calmness under fire, and conspicuous gallantry

displayed by 2d Lt. Childers were an inspiration to his men.

Mr. Speaker, Ernest Childers continued to serve his Nation after the war. He taught jungle training in Panama, and winter training in Alaska before retiring in 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel. A brief stint with the Job Corps program in Washington ended after he suffered a heart attack. Upon returning to Oklahoma, he spoke with students about the emotional cost of war.

Most recently, Lieutenant Colonel Childers wrote an inspirational message to the Nation against racism to discourage attacks against Arab Americans after our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. Childers wrote, ``Even though, as a Native American, I have darker skin than some Americans, that doesn't mean I'm any less patriotic. Even during those times in our history when Native Americans were persecuted and discriminated against, we still volunteered for military service.''

He said, ``Remember, Native Americans didn't even receive the vote until World War I, yet we served in military action because, when all is said and done, we are loyal and patriotic Americans.''

Ernest Childers died on March 17, 2005. His legacy of valor and courage for future generations of American lives on and it is supremely appropriate that we recognize his legacy by naming this VA facility after him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who sponsored this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional Members who have requested time, but I just would encourage a positive vote on this bill for, obviously, someone who loved our country very, very much, and would encourage Members to support this resolution.

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

General Leave

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2546, which would rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, the Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

This legislation was introduced by my colleague from North Carolina, Representative Heath Shuler, and I appreciate his efforts to bring this bill to the floor for consideration so that we can pay tribute to yet another Medal of Honor recipient.

This legislation honors a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice for his comrades in arms and for his country. As a grateful Nation, it is fitting and right to offer tribute to him by giving his name to a facility that expresses our Nation's promise to those who served us in military uniform.

Private First Class Charles George was a native of Cherokee, North Carolina, and a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation. He served his country bravely in the U.S. Army and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on the night of November 30, 1952.

On that night in Korea, Private First Class George was a member of a raiding party committed to engage the enemy and capture a prisoner for interrogation. During the execution of its mission, the group was subjected to intense enemy fire and suffered several casualties. PFC George fought valiantly and, upon reaching the crest of the hill, leapt into the trenches and closed with the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. When friendly troops were ordered to pull back upon completion of the mission, he and two comrades provided cover for the withdrawal of troops. While they were leaving the trenches, a grenade was hurled into their midst. PFC George shouted a warning to his comrades, pushed one soldier out of the way, and threw himself on the grenade. Even though severely injured and certainly in agony, PFC George remained quiet so that his comrades' position would not be disclosed. His companions evacuated him to the first aid station, where he shortly succumbed to his wounds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will submit the text of Private First Class George's Medal of Honor citation for the Record.

*George, Charles

Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army,

Company C, 179th Infantry Regiment, 45th Infantry Division.

Place and date: Near Songnae-dong, Korea, 30 November 1952.

Entered service at: Whittier, N.C. Born: 23 August 1932,

Cherokee, N.C. G.O. NO.: 19, 18 March 1954. Citation: PFC

George, a member of Company C, distinguished himself by

conspicuous gallantry and outstanding courage above and

beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy on the

night of 30 November 1952. He was a member of a raiding party

committed to engage the enemy and capture a prisoner for

interrogation. Forging up the rugged slope of the key terrain

feature, the group was subjected to intense mortar and

machine gun fire and suffered several casualties. Throughout

the advance, he fought valiantly and, upon reaching the crest

of the hill, leaped into the trenches and closed with the

enemy in hand-to-hand combat. When friendly troops were

ordered to move back upon completion of the assignment, he

and 2 comrades remained to cover the withdrawal. While in the

process of leaving the trenches a hostile soldier hurled a

grenade into their midst. PFC George shouted a warning to 1

comrade, pushed the other soldier out of danger, and, with

full knowledge of the consequences, unhesitatingly threw

himself upon the grenade, absorbing the full blast of the

explosion. Although seriously wounded in this display of

valor, he refrained from any outcry which would divulge the

position of his companions. The 2 soldiers evacuated him to

the forward aid station and shortly thereafter he succumbed

to his wound. PFC George's indomitable courage, consummate

devotion to duty, and willing self-sacrifice reflect the

highest credit upon himself and uphold the finest traditions

of the military service.

Mr. Speaker, Private First Class Charles George's incomparable heroism exemplifies the courage, self-sacrifice, and patriotism that are woven throughout the fabric of our Armed Forces. His consuming regard for his comrades exemplifies the very strong bond of those who served in the military feel for one another. PFC George made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and it befits that signal act that we name the Asheville North Carolina VA Medical Center in his honor.

I urge my colleagues to support this excellent legislation, introduced by Mr. Shuler, so that we can name the facility in honor of a very, very brave man who helped our country and certainly the country of South Korea during the Korean War.

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.

I rise in support of H.R. 2602, a bill to designate the VA medical facility in Iron Mountain, Michigan, as the Oscar G. Johnson VA Medical Facility. This legislation was introduced by my colleague from Michigan, Representative Bart Stupak, and it will honor a soldier who served his country with gallantry and distinction under fire during World War II near Scarperia, Italy. I appreciate Congressman Stupak's hard work and initiative on this legislation.

On September 16, 1944, Sergeant Johnson, a mortar gunner, expended his ammunition and assumed the duties of a rifleman. As the leader of the squad of seven men, he was ordered to establish a position 50 yards to the left of his company to cover its exposed flank. Repeated enemy counterattacks had by that afternoon killed or wounded all of his men. Collecting weapons and ammunition from his fallen comrades, he continued to hold his exposed position and inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy throughout the night. On September 17, 25 German soldiers surrendered to him; 25 soldiers surrendered to one very brave soldier.

Two men were sent out to reinforce him that afternoon, but were caught in devastating mortar fire. Sergeant Johnson secured their removal and continued to hold his position until his company was relieved on September 18. Twenty dead Germans were found in front of his position. By his heroic stand and utter disregard for personal safety, Sergeant Johnson was in large measure responsible for defeating the enemy's attempts to turn the exposed left flank.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit Sergeant Johnson's complete Medal of Honor citation into the Record.

Johnson, Oscar G.

Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company B, 363d

Infantry, 91st Infantry Division. Place and date: Near

Scarperia, Italy, 1618 September 1944. Entered service at:

Foster City, Mich. Birth: Foster City, Mich. G.O. No.: 58, 19

July 1945. Citation: (then Pfc.) He practically single-handed

protected the left flank of his company's position in the

offensive to break the German's gothic line. Company B was

the extreme left assault unit of the corps. The advance was

stopped by heavy fire from Monticelli Ridge, and the company

took cover behind an embankment. Sgt. Johnson, a mortar

gunner, having expended his ammunition, assumed the duties of

a rifleman. As leader of a squad of 7 men he was ordered to

establish a combat post 50 yards to the left of the company

to cover its exposed flank. Repeated enemy counterattacks,

supported by artillery, mortar, and machinegun fire from the

high ground to his front, had by the afternoon of 16

September killed or wounded all his men. Collecting weapons

and ammunition from his fallen comrades, in the face of

hostile fire, he held his exposed position and inflicted

heavy casualties upon the enemy, who several times came close

enough to throw hand grenades. On the night of 1617

September, the enemy launched his heaviest attack on Company

B, putting his greatest pressure against the lone defender of

the left flank. In spite of mortar fire which crashed about

him and machinegun bullets which whipped the crest of his

shallow trench, Sgt. Johnson stood erect and repulsed the

attack with grenades and small arms fire. He remained awake

and on the alert throughout the night, frustrating all

attempts at infiltration. On 17 September, 25 German soldiers

surrendered to him. Two men, sent to reinforce him that

afternoon, were caught in a devastating mortar and artillery

barrage. With no thought of his own safety, Sgt. Johnson

rushed to the shell hole where they lay half buried and

seriously wounded, covered their position by his fire, and

assisted a Medical Corpsman in rendering aid. That night he

secured their removal to the rear and remained on watch until

his company was relieved. Five companies of a German

paratroop regiment had been repeatedly committed to the

attack on Company B

without success. Twenty dead Germans were found in front of

his position. By his heroic stand and utter disregard for

personal safety, Sgt. Johnson was in a large measure

responsible for defeating the enemy's attempts to turn the

exposed left flank.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Johnson continued to serve his country after the war. He served as a foreman of a National Guard vehicle maintenance shop in Lansing, Michigan, giving his Nation 30 years of service with the National Guard. On May 13, Mr. Johnson died in Iron Mountain, Michigan, leaving behind a legacy of heroism and gallantry.

I support H.R. 2602 as a fitting tribute to a good man who served his Nation well, not just in war but also throughout his life. I certainly urge all of the Members to support this and would remind the Members that certainly Mr. Johnson is one of the many reasons why we do call this, Mr. Johnson's era, the ``Greatest Generation.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering S. 229 on the House floor today. This Senate bill would name the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico the Raymond G. ``Jerry'' Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Jerry Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor and the Silver Star for heroism during the Korean War. Its companion bill in the House, H.R. 474, introduced by Representative Wilson, has the support of the entire New Mexico delegation as well as Governor Richardson from that State.

During his service in the United States Marine Corps, Second Lieutenant Murphy was cited for his ``conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his life and above and beyond the call of duty as a platoon commander. He was twice wounded, but he repeatedly refused medical attention and continued to lead his men in an assault against a cleverly concealed and well-entrenched enemy force.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would submit for the Record the text of Lieutenant Murphy's Medal of Honor citation.

Murphy, Raymond G.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps

Reserve, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine

Division (Rein.). Place and date: Korea, 3 February 1953.

Entered service at: Pueblo, Colo. Born: 14 January 1930,

Pueblo, Colo. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and

intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call

of duty as a platoon commander of Company A, in action

against enemy aggressor forces. Although painfully wounded by

fragments from an enemy mortar shell while leading his

evacuation platoon in support of assault units attacking a

cleverly concealed and well-entrenched hostile force

occupying commanding ground, 2d Lt. Murphy steadfastly

refused medical aid and continued to lead his men up a hill

through a withering barrage of hostile mortar and small-arms

fire, skillfully maneuvering his force from one position to

the next and shouting words of encouragement. Undeterred by

the increasing intense enemy fire, he immediately located

casualties as they fell and made several trips up and down

the fire-swept hill to direct evacuation teams to the

wounded, personally carrying many of the stricken marines to

safety. When reinforcements were needed by the assaulting

elements, 2d Lt. Murphy employed part of his unit as support

and, during the ensuing battle, personally killed 2 of the

enemy with his pistol. With all the wounded evacuated and the

assaulting units beginning

to disengage, he remained behind with a carbine to cover the

movement of friendly forces off the hill and, though

suffering intense pain from his previous wounds, seized an

automatic rifle to provide more firepower when the enemy

reappeared in the trenches. After reaching the base of the

hill, he organized a search party and again ascended the

slope for a final check on missing marines, locating and

carrying the bodies of a machine gun crew back down the hill.

Wounded a second time while conducting the entire force to

the line of departure through a continuing barrage of enemy

small-arms, artillery, and mortar fire, he again refused

medical assistance until assured that every one of his men,

including all casualties, had preceded him to the main lines.

His resolute and inspiring leadership, exceptional fortitude,

and great personal valor reflect the highest, credit upon 2d

Lt. Murphy and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S.

Naval Service.

Mr. Speaker, after the Korean War, Jerry Murphy spent most of his adult life in service to New Mexico's veterans. He was Director of the Veterans Services Division of the Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA Regional Office from 1974 to 1997.

Jerry Murphy was a paragon of service because after his retirement he served as a volunteer at the VA Hospital, pushing veterans in their wheelchairs to their appointments. Many of those veterans did not know who was helping them, but that's the kind of man that Jerry was. This brave marine and true comrade left this Earth on April 6, 2007. Of course he was buried wearing his VA Hospital volunteer smock.

Mr. Speaker, no one could be more deserving of having a VA Hospital named after him than Jerry Murphy, who served his country with conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity well beyond the call of duty.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 229.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, at each opportunity granted us to consider a bill honoring the service of a Medal of Honor recipient, I stand in awe of the dedication to country and comrades these people displayed through their lives, whether those lives extended beyond their act of bravery or were ended in that the act.

Of the four Medal of Honor recipients to whom we have paid tribute today, one made the ultimate sacrifice for his comrades and his Nation. Three survived the battle to return home where they continued to serve their Nation through service in the military and through service to the Federal Government. Many who lived and worked with them had no knowledge that these men had received America's highest award for valor in combat. Their lives of quiet humility only accentuated their moments of resounding achievement.

The great example of those lives and those moments will, with passage of these bills, Mr. Speaker, be enshrined in the namings that we are now considering.

We must remember that we are voting not simply to name four buildings; we are consecrating the gift of four lives lived well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 229.

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

Mr. Speaker, America recently got a wake-up call when we learned that law enforcement had thwarted a Muslim extremist plot to blow up Kennedy Airport and the surrounding neighborhoods.

This is not the first time that we have had our security exposed at our airports. In March airport employees at Orlando International exploited a loophole in our security and placed a bag with an arsenal of weapons on the airplane. As workers, they never had to pass through a metal detector or had anyone check their bags or equipment.

That is why I introduced H.R. 1413 with my good friend Congresswoman Nita Lowey from New York to implement a 100 percent worker screening pilot program at seven of our airports.

Listen up, America. It is unacceptable that we spend billions to secure our airports and airplanes from dangerous passengers, yet we leave the back door open to workers. I would hope that the Homeland Security Committee heard this wake-up call and scheduled a full committee markup as soon as possible so we can close this dangerous loophole.

Offered By: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Amendment No. 8: Page 96, line 14, strike ``$160,000,000''

and insert ``$128,000,000''.