Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I too want to welcome back Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar, he and I have had the great experience of working since 15 years ago when I came to Congress. He was chairman of Aviation. I became the ranking member on the Republican side when he became Chair of the committee.

We had a great year. We probably passed more legislation than any other committee. We passed an historic water resources bill. We actually did, I think, the 107th override of a Presidential veto. We agreed in a bipartisan fashion to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. I am sorry Mr. Oberstar wasn't here to see that glorious day.

It is very lonely not having either him fighting with you or not having him here to fight with. But we are pleased he is back, and hopefully had an experienced Republican physician doing all those titanium additions to his spine. But he looks great and we are pleased to have him here.

I am also pleased that through his leadership, and a joint bipartisan effort, and I wrote him on December 5, and I will include this letter as part of the Record, saying while I oppose taking other measures out of the pending FAA reauthorization, I want to keep the pressure on, we need to pass that bill, that there is a particular provision whose interest is paramount to that legislation, and that is doing away with an obsolete and unfair FAA mandatory retirement rule that every day is penalizing our pilots. In fact, more than 50 of our Nation's most experienced pilots of commercial airliners are forced to retire.

Now, this bill is entitled the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. I would like to also give a personal example of why I think this is important. The title is important. I might even want to amend the title in honor of one of the guys I went to college with, a buddy of mine. His name is Bob Fobes.

Most people in Congress don't know Bob Fobes, but Bob and I were fraternity brothers, went to the University of Florida. Let me tell you, there is nobody more devoted as far as a pilot. I think the only thing that Bob is devoted to, other than his wife Laurie and his family, is flying, and Bob has not failed on any occasion to mention to me that he is going to be affected by this particular outdated rule that was passed nearly a half a century ago when males and females didn't live as long as they do in our society.

So we are addressing something that personally affects folks like Bob Fobes and thousands of other pilots who are dedicated to one of the great professions that has given the world and America in particular a magic carpet to get around to places that people would not have even imagined they could be 50 years ago.

As of November 2006, we also know that foreign airline pilots are allowed to fly up to age 65, so our counterparts across the Atlantic are doing this. The U.S. sets up a double standard, unfortunately, and I think it is a disadvantage to the flying public to, again, not have our most experienced individuals in the cockpit and being able to fly.

As Chairman Oberstar pointed out, there are additional protections here for the flying public that these individuals will be subject to, even more medical exams, making certain that they are fit and capable even in these additional years that we grant.

The Freedom to Fly Act, H.R. 1125, was introduced earlier into the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by one of our outstanding leaders in aviation, also a pilot, Robin Hayes, the gentleman from North Carolina, and he has 313 bipartisan sponsors on his legislation. Robin

Hayes cannot be here, so I also wanted to give credit to not only Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello and Mr. Petri, but also Robin Hayes, who has worked tirelessly to make certain that this legislation and this particular measure comes before the House.

This is the right thing to do at the right time. I would like to thank again all those who have been involved, and some of the staff members on both sides of the aisle who helped bring this measure forward. I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this very sensible and desperately needed legislation.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2007.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: It is very clear that legislation

to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration will not

be signed into law before the end of this year. Therefore, I

strongly believe it is our obligation and this Committee's

responsibility to see to it that our most experienced pilots

are permitted to continue flying commercial aircraft.

You and I have both received bipartisan request letters

from our colleagues urging passage of legislation to increase

the current retirement age for thousands of commercial

airline pilots across the country. Moreover, H.R. 1125, The

Freedom to Fly Act, has 313 bipartisan cosponsors, including

many Members who serve on our Committee.

I look forward to working with you to move a compromise

bill before Congress adjourns this session.

Sincerely,

John L. Mica,

Ranking Republican Member.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years. I inherited that responsibility some months after September 11 and concluded my service as the Chair of that important subcommittee January of this year. I now am the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Just by way of my background, I have been involved in both the creation of TSA and the evolution of TSA over these years, and, trying to make certain, as I know Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite is doing, Representative Nita Lowey is trying to do, and I think they are very well intended and actually I hope to work with them, I just found out about this proposal coming up today last night, and I do pledge to work with them to try to make their intent the most effective intent, protecting the American public. And I know that is what Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite does. That is her intent. And I think that is Mrs. Lowey's intent here.

But what we have got to do is make certain that we aren't doing something that really won't achieve the results. And I think the normal screening of workers, as it has been done as we screen passengers, would not be that effective. So I have no objection to a demonstration project, but I think what we need is one that is sophisticated to try to deal with finding out what the bad intent of supposedly good aviation system workers may be.

Most of what we have at the airport today, I hate to tell you, the technology does not deal with the current threat. The current threat is not someone taking a gun or a weapon, as we traditionally know it, through airport screening checkpoints. In fact, USA Today has shown even how flawed this system is, in revealing some of the results of taking through not only those type items but also other items that may pose a risk today.

The problem we have is people with bad intent who obtain employment in this industry can do great harm. What we need to do is focus the screening on going after that bad intent, because once they get past the worker screening or passenger screening point, a worker has access to chemicals, substances, tools, a treasure trove of items that can be used to take down an aircraft, and that is what we want to prevent.

So I am not going to try to kill this measure. That is not my intent. In fact, I didn't come out here to call for

a roll call vote on this. But what I would like to do is work with them to see that their intent, which is to make certain that workers who may pose danger to the system, we find a way to screen them that would be most effective in protecting our passengers.

The worst thing we can do, and I will tell you this, I helped create the Department of Homeland Security, I helped author the TSA bill. But TSA and the Department of Homeland Security is 177,000 employees. I compare it to sort of like pigeons you may see in a plaza, and when Congress claps its hands, they will all fly off in whatever direction we send them, but it may not always be the best-intended.

I give you one final example. We ban lighters from being carried onboard aircraft. We ban lighters, but we didn't ban cell phones or cameras with a battery. Here's my cell phone. This is much more dangerous as an ignition electronic device than any lighter that you can carry onboard.

So sometimes we do things here with good intentions, like the lighter ban, but they may not have the results we would like to achieve. So I came here to tell both of the sponsors I appreciate what they are trying to do, but I think we can take and craft their demonstration project into a demonstration project that truly screens workers in a way that will be beneficial to catch the potentially bad players and that we can make this system safer.

So I compliment you on your well-intended efforts. I pledge to work with you, and we will take it from there.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, not only will the Americans receive a great surprise with a tax increase with the so-called energy bill that was just passed by the House of Representatives, and higher fuel costs; I want to announce, as the Republican leader on the Transportation Committee, you've also depleted the highway trust fund by some $2.1 billion in this measure.

The Congressional Budget Office is already predicting a $5 billion deficit in the highway trust fund by 2009.

Now, my friends in Congress, we can't keep this game up. Unfortunately, in the full year 2007 appropriations resolution that passed the House, we knocked another $3.47 billion and rescinded that from the highway trust fund, and another $3 billion recession from the highway program in the 2008 bill that passed the House recently.

Unfortunately, the game being played with our Nation's highway trust fund has consequences, and we will pay.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, one of the greatest voices to ever be heard in these Chambers has been lost to the ages. I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, a great American and my former colleague, Henry Hyde. Tomorrow in Illinois, one of the State's most capable and eloquent Members of Congress will be laid to rest.

It was my distinct honor to meet Henry Hyde, to serve with Henry Hyde and to call Henry Hyde my friend. In this House Chamber over the past 150 years, there have been many who have spoken. I submit that if you had the privilege to hear Henry Hyde speak here, you were indeed most fortunate.

In this House of Representatives over the past several centuries, there have been many distinguished individuals. I submit that not only was Henry Hyde one of the most distinguished, but also one of the most appreciated individuals, one of the finest gentlemen, one of the greatest Americans to serve in this, the people's House.

Whether he was defending the unborn or relating his position to us on any matter before this House, Henry Hyde always spoke with dignity, conviction, principle and eloquence. When Henry Hyde addressed this House, its Members and all Americans listened. While everyone who knew Henry Hyde can tell us a very special story and personal experience about knowing Henry Hyde, there are several memories that I will always fondly cherish and remember.

I recall when Henry came to my district, came to my home in Florida. I will never forget when Henry Hyde stopped me, actually in this aisleway, here on the floor of the House, and in that aisleway he complimented me on my remarks that day. Imagine, Henry Hyde, the master orator, praising such common words. How honored I was by his compliment to so junior a Member on that day. There are many other stories I can tell about Henry Hyde and I know we can all share the other stories, but let me tell you in closing to relate one of my last memories of this great man.

I had the privilege of traveling with Henry to the United States European interparliamentary meetings overseas, and on my last trip with Henry to one of these meetings, one of the last times that Henry Hyde as I recall him serving as chairman of the International Relations Committee, we were flying together with others across the Atlantic to make our next day's meeting. I woke up in the middle of the night and everyone in the cabin on the plane was sleeping, with one exception, and that was Henry Hyde. Some of you may recall Henry had been quite ill towards the end of his service. He required assistance to walk, and I knew how uncomfortable and how difficult it was for him to travel. But here was Henry Hyde so committed to his responsibility, while in such great personal pain and discomfort that he could not rest, he had to sit up in his chair all night, but he was fulfilling his duties and his responsibilities. I knew that night and I knew when I first met him, I knew also when I first heard him, and I have known, and I have been honored to call him my friend, I have had the opportunity to know a great man, a great American, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

To Henry's wife and family, and on behalf of all the people of the Seventh Congressional District of Florida, and personally, I extend my deepest sympathies.

Mr. Speaker, I support recognizing emancipation and honoring the contributions of slaves in the construction of the Capitol. However, as I discussed in the subcommittee hearing and full committee markup, I have concerns about renaming the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center.

Throughout the history of the Capitol, none of the monumental spaces, such as the House and Senate chambers or the Rotunda, have been named after specific individuals or events in history. Instead, these great spaces of the Capitol have long been called by their functional names. By doing so, all people regardless of their race, ethnic heritage, contributions, or human travails are equally recognized.

These spaces are dramatic because of their physical settings and the unique historical events that took place within their walls. Similarly, the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center will become a monumental space with its own unique history; and just as those spaces have not been named, I believe the Great Hall should be reserved and left to honor all Americans.

While I do not believe it is appropriate to rename the Great Hall, I do believe that it is important for Congress to acknowledge and honor the contributions slaves made to the Capitol. In the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management and again in the full committee markup of this legislation, I recommended that other spaces could better acknowledge emancipation and honor the slaves that helped build the Capitol.

It would be most appropriate to name the exhibition hall that will provide an important historical context to the name Emancipation Hall. It would also provide visitors an opportunity to learn about and pay tribute to emancipation. One of the first recommendations I made as a member of the Capitol Preservation Commission was to create a first class museum space within the CVC. I proposed the highest level museum space so America could exhibit some of the Nation's treasurers-- like the Emancipation Proclamation--which are rarely viewed by the public.

The exhibition hall will be 16,500 square feet. Outside of the National Archives Building, this will be our Nation's finest exhibition space. This hall will not only honor those who built the Capitol, but provide information about their contributions to American history. This exhibition hall will display and prominently house the catafalque that was built to support the casket of Abraham Lincoln--the Great Emancipator. This is the original funeral bier used as the Great Emancipator lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda. This hall will contain permanent exhibits on the Constitution and the post-Civil War amendments proposed by Congress and ratified by the States to abolish slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the law, and to ensure the right to vote.

This beautiful hall will have strong historical and contextual links to emancipation. It will be the primary venue for acknowledging and commemorating the slaves who helped build the Capitol and the country. It will help deepen the understanding of our Nation's long struggle with slavery and its ultimate abolition for all who visit here. For all of these reasons, nothing could be more appropriate or significant than naming this area of the Capitol Visitor Center Emancipation Hall.

Another possible Emancipation naming CVC venue would be the congressional auditorium. While it does not have the strong links to emancipation as the exhibition hall, it is the most significant functional space in the facility, a place where leaders will gather to discuss important ideas of their time. The auditorium is a grand space that is being designed to serve as an alternative House Chamber. Except for the current House and Senate Chambers, no other venue in the Capitol has such an important purpose. The name Emancipation Hall would serve as a valuable reminder of courage, leadership, and our unique commitment to advance the cause of human freedom and fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. As such, I believe it would be appropriate and fitting to name the facility Emancipation Hall.

In sum, I believe there are more appropriate areas in the Capitol Visitor Center to name Emancipation Hall. Additionally, we have a tradition of leaving the monumental spaces of the Capitol un-named. As a monumental space in, and an introduction to, the Capitol, the Great Hall should retain its current functional name like the other great spaces within the Capitol.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, this is the first time I have come out for a 1-minute address, and I think it is necessary that I also voice my disapproval with what is happening.

Right now the Congress of the United States is at an 11 percent approval rating. And, unfortunately, the actions dealing with our veterans and military appropriations measures is going to, I think, further erode public confidence in this body.

Right now in what is going to play out in the next number of hours, our military and our veterans, unfortunately, will be held hostage. Unfortunately, too, our veterans and our military are going to suffer from this, all in an attempt to try to, I guess, embarrass the President of the United States. But in turn we will be embarrassing, and further eroding confidence in, this House.

We need to work together to pass in a bipartisan effort the funding for our troops and our veterans and stop the political games.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

My only parliamentary inquiry is, in fact, that we are now in fact taking up the WRDA veto override, and that debate will take up 1 hour, and the time has been equally divided.

Is that the correct parliamentary procedure or order of business?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, I have supported President Bush on many occasions. In fact, I pulled a list of some 43 measures on which I supported the President in an attempt to sustain a veto.

But today, my colleagues, I must respectfully disagree with President Bush's veto of this important and long overdue Water Resources Development Act. I believe it's far too important for both our Nation and for my State of Florida and, again, for all the projects that are in the backlog. I'm disappointed the President and the White House have decided to veto this legislation that includes many critically

needed infrastructure and restoration projects.

For the first time, you've heard this since 2000, the year 2000, Congress will enact legislation authorizing, and this is authorizing, we are setting Congress's priorities for authorization. All of these projects in this bill must come back for approval for funding.

But this particular bill includes all of the water resource projects to restore our endangered ecosystems across the country, construct new levees, dams, rebuild our beaches, and work on other important water resources projects.

A significant portion of the bill, I might say, deals with Everglades restoration, something that we've been working on for years. And also another significant portion of this legislation deals with work and reconstruction of some of our water resources projects in the damaged gulf of the United States.

There's been, as you've heard, a water resources bill introduced in every Congress since 2000; however, controversies always dash the hopes of approving a measure.

After I assumed responsibility for ranking member of the House Republican leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I met with the new chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and I sat down and we tried to decide what were our priorities. And this is a great example of how this body should work. This is a bipartisan measure. Mr. Oberstar, this was one of his priorities. He worked on it for a number of years. I came new to my leadership position, but pledged to work with him; and we did work together on this.

Let me say also, ironically, I feel sad today that Mr. Oberstar is not joining us. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers are with him. He's recovering from surgery yesterday which he had scheduled some time in advance.

But he served this House for 32 years before he became the chairman of T & I. He made a commitment, a bipartisan commitment to work together, and we did that. And when you do that in this House, you can achieve anything. And in a few minutes we will achieve an override of the President's veto because we worked together in a bipartisan manner to rebuild our Nation's water resources.

Let me say also that earmarks, and this contains a number of projects, earmarks have gotten a somewhat tainted reputation and were criticized. But what we did, and what I tried to do on the Republican side, was make certain that this was a transparent process. Every Republican House project was publicly submitted, publicly available for review, and very carefully vetted. In fact, Mr. Oberstar and I cut more than 100 projects from the 2005 proposed House-passed WRDA proposal that did not pass.

The 2007 WRDA bill addresses what I believe are the important needs of our Nation. Again, I think this is a good bill that represents investment in America. These investments will improve trade, protect our homes, our businesses from flood damages, and from other ravages of Mother Nature we've seen. They'll enhance our quality of life by restoring aquatic ecosystems like in the State of Florida with the Everglades restoration.

This legislation ensures our ports and waterways remain viable in the international marketplace by authorizing critical navigational deepening projects. Maritime commerce is absolutely essential to the future of our economy. Congestion at an outdated port or waterway is becoming a national economic issue, and this bill addresses that economic problem. Products moving into our waterways aid our environment and lessen highway and rail congestion.

Efficient waterways must be, in fact, an integral part of America's intermodal transportation system, and this bill helps do that.

To maintain our place in the global economy, the United States must have modern ports and waterways. Our ports and waterways need to be improved to handle additional traffic. And what's coming are mega- ships, a new class of larger liners and freighters that are coming. We have almost no ports that can handle that type of traffic. This conference report addresses these needs in several ways, including improvements to waterways in my State of Florida, as well as in Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, and other areas.

In addition, this bill authorizes seven new locks and other navigational improvements on the upper Mississippi River.

The WRDA conference report authorizes critical projects to provide flood protection to millions of Americans. And we've all seen that if we neglect our waterway infrastructure or our water protection system, you've heard that adage, we pay now or we pay later. Well, I can tell you we'll pay much later if we don't protect ourselves from, again, reducing the potential flood damage that we've seen.

This bill includes many projects that protect our cities from floods and also from those coastal storms we've experienced.

The Corps of Engineers is the leader in planning and carrying out our environmental restoration projects. And this conference report that we will override a veto on in a few minutes is by far the greenest, most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act ever passed by Congress. This bill's major new focus is environmental restoration, and again, it contains the first work. In 2000 we authorized study of cleaning up the Everglades. This bill authorizes work on the Everglades.

Everglades restoration, as I said, has been talked about for years. And it is a national ecological treasure that must be protected for future generations of Americans.

I might say too that the restoration of the Everglades is in partnership with the State of Florida. And I have a message from a Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, was handed to me earlier: Greetings from Brazil, where he's now with 200 businessmen. And the Republican Governor of the State of Florida is urging that we override the President's veto, basically because of what I said about the Everglades and other critical water infrastructure projects in the State of Florida.

This bill does not, as I said, guarantee funding. Money will have to be appropriated to meet these authorization levels; but it represents a critical commitment by this Congress to restore, again, an ecological jewel in Florida and water resources projects throughout the United States.

Also addressed in the bill are policy issues that will improve how the Corps of Engineers actually conducts projects, and that's also important. There's a peer review process that I think is critical to monitoring and protecting whether the projects perform as designed.

I know the President is concerned that the conference report authorizes more projects than could actually be funded. All of those projects may not ultimately receive funding from Congress. They have to come back to Congress, even after this authorization. But it is important that we authorize, through this conference report, a good list of investments from which the Congress can later prioritize funding.

Finally, I know the White House has expressed concerns with this bill. However, again, the House bill in 2005 contained 784 projects. The House bill in 2007 that we worked to examine in a transparent manner the projects, contains 682. Over 100 projects were cut out of the previous House bill. Again, this was, I believe, an open and transparent and a bipartisan process that, hopefully, will restore some of the public's confidence in this process.

And, finally, we have to realize that this bill, since we haven't passed one since 2000, represents the equivalent of three WRDA bills. When we had a backup in 1986 we, in fact, funded $11 billion worth of projects back in 1986 because we hadn't passed a bill in a long time.

So while I wholeheartedly respect the President's veto, we, as Congress have a responsibility to provide for our Nation's resources and infrastructure, provide the leadership to get that job done. And I urge Members to support overriding the President's veto.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of the leaders in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the true fiscal conservatives of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another fiscal watchdog in the House, a leader in the Republican Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the former immediate past chair of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect; he is also the ranking member of the Water Resources Committee, has done an excellent job on this bill working in a bipartisan effort. It is my honor to yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to yield myself one-half minute for the purpose of an introduction, and then I am going to yield 3 minutes to the individual I want to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, it is now one of the greatest pleasures I have had to introduce a gentleman who I got to know for a brief period of time. He came into this House, and he has done an incredible job of representation in a difficult time for his State of Louisiana. I had the chance to go down with him and look at infrastructure projects after the damage. I think the people of Louisiana recognized, in an unprecedented historic fashion, his leadership, in electing him Governor in a tide that was historic in proportions.

So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the gentleman and future Governor of the State of Louisiana, our colleague, Mr. Jindal, the gentleman from Louisiana, again, I recognize for 3 minutes.

I will continue to reserve until the last speaker.

Understanding that Ms. Johnson will close, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we come to the close of the debate on overriding the Presidential veto. Today, indeed, has been a strange day. That is the interesting thing about politics and government in the United States of America. Look at the people who have spoken here; a future Governor. We have heard people who have had their homes destroyed, their property. We had a strange day here today. My side of the aisle ended up voting not to end a particular debate on a possible impeachment resolution of the Vice President. Here I am, a staunch supporter of the President's effort to maintain fiscal responsibility, supporting override of his veto.

But this is a very difficult job. It is a difficult job for me. It is a difficult job for the President. I think we like to do everything we can. I think it is in the heart of the other side of the aisle, and I know in the heart of my fellow Republican Members to do as good a job

as we can in representing people. I know the President has had to make some difficult choices coming into office with the events of September 11 and the terrorist threat that we face and the line drawn in the sand by al Qaeda and Iraq. And national security is our primary responsibility, but we also have responsibility to our infrastructure.

So we have tried to sort out those priorities in this process. We do need an investment in our infrastructure.

The President is right in, probably, his stance. I think we are right in our stance. This is an authorization bill. This is not a spending bill. It does prioritize for the Congress bills that have been carefully considered and projects that have been considered by Members, and Members make very sincere requests based on the conditions of their particular districts.

It is a great system and it does work. I understand the President's commitment to fiscal responsibility, and I think we have tried to act in a responsible and good-steward fashion.

In closing, I again want to thank Mr. Oberstar. Unfortunately, he is not with us today, on this day that he worked so hard for. I thank Ms. Johnson. I want to thank Mr. Baker, our ranking member, and all of those who have worked, particularly the staff: Jim Coon, our staff director; David Heymsfeld on the Democrat staff side; John Anderson and Ryan Seiger; all of the staff, those named and others, who have worked to bring this bill together, all with the same intent, to improve the lives, the resources and the condition of our Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have this amendment No. 4 which would clarify the small business set-aside provisions of the Small Business Act and require that it, in fact, apply to Federal contracts not excluding Federal supply schedule and multiple award scheduled holders.

Now, this is a mandatory provision, and I have accepted some of the objections from my side of the aisle in not moving forward with this particular provision. I do have the next amendment in line, which does deal with a similar issue, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

If I may, if the gentlelady would yield, I look forward to working with you. I am delighted that your side of the aisle was willing to accept this amendment. I would like to work and move forward with you in a bipartisan effort.

But in order to get one of the two amendments to work with my side of the aisle in fairness and not pass a mandatory provision, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and work with the gentlelady and the committee and thank everyone for their consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, Mr. Chabot and the Chair of the Small Business Committee, I am pleased to present another amendment, as I indicated in withdrawing the first amendment, that is not mandatory in nature, but does bring to light and address some of the problems that we have had with an interpretation of acquisitions under the GSA Federal supply schedule, some different interpretation.

This amendment would state that it is, in fact, a sense of the House of Representatives that small business set-asides should not be excluded from any acquisitions under the General Services Administration Federal supply schedule.

How much time do I have remaining, might I inquire.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of that minute, but I do again want to thank again the gentlelady, the Chair of the SBA Committee, and Mr. Chabot, the ranking member.

This is a great example of how government should work, having a constituent, a small business person in my district, bring unfairness, the lack of definition about procedures here with the SBA and GSA, two government agencies, and try to get a resolution.

I am delighted to be here. I am trying to think back in 15 years if I have ever brought an amendment up and have everybody agree on it like this. I don't think so, but it's a special occasion.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Shuster, for yielding me time, and also for managing the time today on this bill. Mr. Shuster is doing an outstanding job in leading the Republican side of the Rail Subcommittee, and I appreciate his fine efforts. Also, the great efforts of my colleague from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who chairs the subcommittee. And indeed, we are fortunate to have someone with Mr. Oberstar's leadership at our helm, chairing the committee after a long wait of some 32 years. I know this has been one of his priorities, rail safety, and I'm pleased that he has an opportunity to bring his bill to the floor today.

Now, of course, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my colleagues, we all want safe rail, we want safe infrastructure in our Nation, and it is important that we do everything possible to move safety forward and to make certain that freight rail, passenger rail, that our crossings, that those that work and are employed in this great industry are as safe as possible. And I think that that was the original intent.

Now, let me say that I have an agreement with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster to support this bill on passage, and I intend to put my card in the reader and I will vote ``yes.'' That doesn't prohibit me from talking a little bit about the bill and the genesis of this bill.

Now, the intent is one thing about this legislation, and I think, again, it was safety and well-intended. But unfortunately, I think we started out with a bad bill.

The other side won the election, and there were some presents to be presented to labor. This doesn't have a red bow on it. But this started out as something I think that was sort of a gift to labor from the election. It is nice to approach legislation from that standpoint. But I think we have been able to take what I consider a very bad bill, that its intention was to actually codify some of the labor work rules relating to our rail industry. We have taken that bad legislation, and we have made it a little bit better. I think we still have a ways to go.

There are some good things in this. Mr. Oberstar pointed out that we did take the number one recommendation of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board. That is the board that does investigate accidents. It is important that we take from them the best information they have possible and then translate that into legislative action so that accident doesn't occur. So, one, we have taken their recommendation, a positive train separation, and it is part of this bill. I am complimentary of that.

I think Mr. Graves, the gentleman from Missouri, a member of our committee and outstanding subcommittee Chair, I am sorry, ranking member, of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, his crossing prioritization for changing out dangerous crossings is an excellent provision. I think also that there is a good provision in this for acquiring some of the technical equipment. You have to understand, Mr. Shuster said there are very few accidents. In fact, the latest statistics that we have, there were 16 employee deaths in 2006. Only six of the deaths involved train accidents. So it is a very low number. That is compared to 25 of 33 employee deaths in 1996. So there is substantial improvement in that regard.

But if you look at some of the factors, and we have the factors that cause train accidents, you find the human factor is number one. It accounts for some 35, almost 36 percent of train accidents. This bill doesn't do enough, really, to deal with the human factors, in my opinion. Some of that involves training and some other things that we should be addressing.

The second is track defects. I had a chance, when I was going to college, I worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week on the rail to finance my college education, part of it, and I got to see some of what happens on the railroads firsthand. Track defects today are very difficult to detect just by some of the measures that we have, for example, in this bill.

This bill mandates that we have almost a doubling of track inspectors. Now, that is a nice gift also to the unions. We will get a few more union members. But is that what we need when the way to really detect track defects is with the latest technology and equipment? I did say the bill has authorization for acquisition of, I think, six additional track testing pieces of equipment. But if we really want to do that, we should be spending not just more money on bodies and inspectors and routine inspections, increasing those, kind of makework; we should be, first of all, making certain that we have a risk-based inspection system.

When I become chairman of Aviation, that was one of the things we did in Aviation, and I gave my blessings to, back in 1991. We have enjoyed the safest period of aviation safety, passenger aircraft safety, in the history of our Nation. I believe that is because it is a risk-based system. Rather than going out on a Monday, we are going to inspect this piece of equipment and then we schedule that for the next month on Monday and we go back and we do it and we add inspectors, we look at where the risks are and that is where we put our resources. It is not always how much we spend; it is how we spend it and how we apply those dollars.

Again, I have some questions about the approach in this bill. We do have an agreement. I am pleased to support this. My hope is that we can take this bill as we have done working with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, and we can craft it into a better piece of legislation as it goes hopefully through conference, and I will support it.

In closing, there are some questions about the amendments. I will support the manager's amendment which I agreed to. The other three Members have asked me, and I say, you pick and choose. Mr. Oberstar and I did not make the decision on the three other amendments the Rules Committee brought forth, and you will have to assess them as to their own merits.

It is important that we take this legislation up. It is important that we move together in a bipartisan fashion. I have a little bit different set of priorities, again, on some of the issues that we have addressed in the legislation. But I have a fond hope that through a bipartisan future effort we can approve this legislation and continue to make certain that our rail employees, our rail passengers and those that cross the railroad tracks in our communities are safe.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to SGT Adam Quinn, 22, who died October 6, 2007 while serving our Nation in Afghanistan.

Prior to joining the Army, Adam graduated from DeLand High School in DeLand, Florida where he was a leader in the Junior ROTC program. He also attended the First United Methodist Church in DeLand with his family.

Adam joined the Army and took great pride in serving his country. His colleagues remember a compassionate individual who cared deeply for others while his family recalls his uncanny ability to make people laugh. Adam's character earned him the respect of his family, friends and fellow soldiers. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina which was deployed to Afghanistan. Adam served with great distinction--the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart and numerous other awards and citations.

We should all remember Adam's courage and his ultimate sacrifice for our nation. The freedom and liberty we enjoy and the peace in the world for others for which he fought are part of the great legacy that SGT Adam Quinn leaves behind. He was laid to rest at Oakdale Cemetery in DeLand, Florida on October 12.

To Adam's wife, Faye; their child who will arrive in March of 2008; his parents, Charles and Sherry; his brother, Asa; and his entire family, we extend our deepest sympathy.

Madam Speaker, because of SGT Adam Quinn's sacrifice for our country, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his service in our Nation's Armed Forces and remembering both his life and his dedication to the United States of America.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to bring to the floor the FAA reauthorization legislation that is before us. As Members know, and those who follow this subject, our authorization runs out, I believe, the end of next week. That is our Federal policy and projects' financing ability to run our Nation's air traffic system. We had a responsibility to move forward legislation to renew that Federal law, and that's why we are here today. I think that is an important responsibility.

I have tried to work with Mr. Oberstar, who now chairs the full committee. He chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, ironically, when I was a freshman in Congress. And as he mentioned, I had the opportunity to chair that subcommittee for the past 6 years and developed a great working relationship with him.

I am pleased to work with my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), who has done yeoman's work to try to bring this legislation forward in a responsible manner, working with the now- chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who likewise has put his full efforts towards this important reauthorization.

We have been fortunate, too, to have great staff on both sides of the aisle working together to meet that responsibility. I am pleased that we could bring the bill forward.

However, I have to say, in all honesty, I have some mixed emotions. I must also state that when we come to final passage, and I have told Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello and others, that I will cast a vote not in support of this FAA reauthorization, and really for two reasons.

First of all, when we introduced the bill, there were several objectionable provisions that had been proposed that I opposed, and I do respect the gentlemen from Minnesota and also Illinois, in working cooperatively to introduce the bill without those objectionable provisions. However, right after we introduced it and we marked up the bill, we started sort of piling on, and there are two provisions which I cannot support, two major provisions, and I made them aware of my opposition.

The first one involves an unprecedented reach-back, and it is for the air traffic controllers. Let me say there are men and women, some 15,000 of them, who do an incredible job serving our air traffic control system. And back in the 1990s, I believe that they were underpaid, undercompensated for their responsibilities. But through a contract that was negotiated then under the Clinton administration, they did receive for the next 7 years an average increase of about 10 percent a year. In fact, it totals 75 percent over those 7 years.

Now, I would love to have it 10 percent guaranteed increase. I think people who work here in the Congress would like to have a 10 percent pay increase every year; 1.2 million Federal employees, maybe another 20,000 that work at FAA would all like to have this deal, and that deal wasn't to be.

This past Congress had the difficult task of receiving the contract that was being negotiated and the final offer that was made by FAA because the contract reached an impasse. And in an

unprecedented fashion also, the terms of that contract offer was brought to Congress, and the air traffic controllers lost in that vote here on the floor.

Now, I sympathize with Mr. Oberstar and also with Mr. Costello. The appropriators turned down the air traffic controllers in the House. We had several CRs where they attempted to reopen this contract; it was turned down. It was turned down by the appropriators in the Senate. It was turned down in the bill that is now before the other body. Each time that they have gone to the Democrat side, which now controls this body, they have been turned down.

Now, they did manage to put this provision to which I object in the bill, and it is unfortunate. It has a huge financial impact. It is estimated to be $1.9 billion, if this is allowed to go forward. And the money is one thing, but reaching back in an unfair manner to other Federal employees. We have some 20,000 professionals, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, a whole host of staff in FAA that aren't going to be treated in an equitable manner.

And then the bad precedent it sets for Congress. Folks, any time you get into a labor dispute, just bring it to Congress and we will up your salary when we are pressured. That can't be the way we operate. I have agreed to change the mechanism. Nobody in Congress likes to be the negotiator of salaries or contracts, and we shouldn't be, and I am committed to that.

I will also say that since we took up this bill and knowing that this is a pending controversial matter, I have worked day and night to try to get the administration and NATCA union representatives together to resolve those differences. I appreciate the work of all of those involved. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has also joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and myself and the Democrat members in that effort. Unfortunately, it's jammed into this bill and that's not fair.

There are other provisions that have been put in here for big labor. Now, I know labor won a big vote with the election and is attempting to increase its membership. I respect that, but I think that the grab they have attempted here goes beyond what I feel is reasonable, not only in expanding organizational opportunities that I think go beyond again a reasonable level but some of the other provisions in here that will add cost, that will add regulations, that will add complications to operating our system and not give us a fair return. Not only do we have a responsibility to bring forth this legislation that runs this system but we have an obligation and responsibility to taxpayers and others, the travelers who finance the system, that their funds be spent wisely.

I do also have some reservations about provisions that will be added in the manager's amendment. Again, it's not always how much money you spend, but how you spend that money, and we have a responsibility to spend that wisely and very efficiently for hardworking Americans who are paying in to also help finance this system.

And then, of course, the final point is the President has issued a veto statement, and he will veto this based on spending, based on the overreach by labor for their contract and other terms that have been put into this legislation. Even though I have opposition, I have pledged to work to move the process forward and continue to renew that pledge at this time as we move forward with the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Republican leader of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want to add to the colloquy, and pledge to the gentleman from California that I look forward to working with the Chair of the full committee to address the safety issues of the Santa Monica Airport that you have raised here before the House today.

So you have our commitment on this side of the aisle. It is a safety issue, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing this matter before the House and we assure again our cooperation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have a distinguished Member from Tennessee on the other side of the aisle who needs some time, and we have some extra time, so I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and welcome his commentary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and say I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who just spoke, but I think the facts are a little bit different on cutting the air traffic controllers' compensation. This chart, in fact, shows an 81 percent salary increase since 1998.

Unfortunately, also, there's a disparity now of almost 40 percent between air traffic controllers and other FAA employees in what they receive as far as increases. So that just doesn't jibe with the facts. And I have the respect of the air traffic controllers, and they should be adequately compensated, and I'll support that. But we can't do an unprecedented reach-back and try to do something that's not fair to everyone.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield, at this time, 3\1/2\ minutes, and ask also the Chair of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, if he would join me in this time as I yield to Mr. Garrett for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's concern. Mr. Garrett has been a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents and he faces a difficult time, as does Mr. Shays from Connecticut. I have been in both of their districts and talked to the constituents, and as FAA moves forward, he has my commitment, during this colloquy and after this colloquy, to work with him to try to encourage FAA to see what we can do to minimize the impact on his constituents.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about the remaining time on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Minnesota has the right to close. He deserves more than 45 seconds. I would like to, at the appropriate time, yield him 45 additional seconds, which would give him 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

Just in closing for my part, again I want to thank the chairmen of both the subcommittee and the full committee and our ranking member, Mr. Petri, for their work.

And I said at the beginning, we have an obligation to move this process forward. Mr. Petri and I are committed to that.

Now, we do disagree with some of the provisions that have been incorporated into this measure. We will cast our votes in opposition. But we are trying to move this forward. We have a responsibility. We have an aviation system that is approaching a meltdown. We have an increase in passengers, and we want the safest possible system. So in that spirit we are going to move forward, and I hope that we can improve the bill if we can get it to conference and if we can move forward.

Mr. Chairman, with that pledge, I am pleased now to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Petri minus the 45 seconds I allotted to the other side.

I thank the ranking member, Mr. Petri.

Unfortunately, I have to rise, also, in opposition to the manager's amendment. I did cite that the poison pill that was added after introduction of the bill was, of course, the reach-back for Big Labor, which has a $1.9 billion price tag over 5 years. We've had problems with the FedEx provision, which unfairly targets that company.

I agreed to raise some fees, but then in the main bill we would divert some funds to bicycle storage. We open up multi-billion dollar funding for purposes like that that are hard to explain to people who want airports expanded and improvements and get something else.

We have some 40-now studies as a result of the manager's amendment, I think we're up to at least 40, and $25 million costs, not to mention additional earmarks for union.

The OSHA provision for regulation on airplanes added in this, I think it's important that we have safe cabins for passengers, but again, we can have a nightmare in imposing OSHA regulations where they're very difficult to enforce and create, again, a nightmare not only for enforcement, but for those who work on the aircraft and for those who are involved in commercial aviation.

Firefighting standards are important, but to impose them, and we tried to get some more reasonable standards, but to impose them arbitrarily at huge expense for small and medium airports that don't have the traffic that warrant some of these mandates from the Federal level, diversion of additional funds. We want our foreign repair stations to have the best certified mechanics; but when you put a provision in, that is contrary to international treaties and agreements. So the list goes on and on. I guess ranking member, Mr. Petri, said the bug control notification is sort of the icing on the cake of why we can't support the manager's amendment. Just some well- intended provisions, but misguided.

We certainly will work with the other side. We tried up until the introduction, and we will continue honest efforts to take their good intentions and put it into good legislation rather than a maze of costs, mandates, and burdens that don't get us where we need to be.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to know what's in the proposed amendment to the manager's amendment.

Yes.

And this is under a sense of Congress provision?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution in remembrance on the eve of September 11, the sixth anniversary of the attack on the United States. I am pleased that the committee on which I serve, the Government Reform Committee, and leadership of the House is remembering those who were lost as a result of that tragic attack on the United States.

I wanted to come out tonight to also remember those that I knew and remember, just as every American who was alive on September 11, remembers where they were and who they knew and how they were affected.

The morning of September 11 I was invited by Secretary Rumsfeld to have breakfast with him in the Pentagon. The topic of discussion, as you may recall, was a new administration working under an old budget, but we downsized the military, and the Secretary was concerned about the possibility of the United States coming under some other type of threat. How ironic.

That morning we sat and discussed that subject in the Pentagon, the morning of September 11 and what would follow. I learned, just as the Secretary of Defense learned, of the attack just a few minutes, around 9 o'clock in the morning.

The irony of that day is that being in the Pentagon, and I left shortly before the plane hit the Pentagon, that Barbara Olson, who served the Government Reform Committee, was on the plane that hit the Pentagon. I will never forget, and I am not one of these guys that is sort of sentimental, but I remember seeing Barbara at a reception. She had left the committee, but she pecked me on the cheek as she said goodbye. I will never forget that goodbye. That was the last time I saw Barbara. She was on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

In the Pentagon was Terry Lynch. I was chief of staff for then- Senator Hawkins, and he worked with Senator Shelby from Alabama. I lost a good friend in Terry Lynch.

Seven weeks before September 11, I was invited by a fellow by the name of Neil Levin, who was legislative director for Alfonse D'Amato, to come up. I had been named the chairman of Aviation. Neil Levin had been named director of the New York Port Authority.

I spent time with Neil. We held a hearing with about 13 Members of Congress on Monday morning. We conducted a hearing in the World Trade Center hearing room. Afterwards Neil took me, my wife, and I think two or three other Members and their spouses that accompanied us for that occasion.

In the Windows on the World restaurant, on the side, the New York Port Authority had a little reception in the dining room, and Neil hosted lunch for my wife and myself after that hearing. Neil and just about everyone who helped us with that hearing 7 weeks before happened to be in that same dining room the morning of September 11, and all of them were killed.

I remember tonight Neil Levin, his family, his wife, those he left behind, and everyone who was with us as I left them in that room where they all died. The only one who survived was Bill Dakota, the airport director, who was at a conference in Montreal.

So tonight has a meaning I wanted to leave on the Record of the House of Representatives. I remember each and every one of those individuals.

I stood with my wife at Shanksville just a few weeks ago. I had not been there before. We remembered those great heroes.

I might say in closing, those of Flight 93, the first responders, all those who helped in America's darkest hour, we saw our brightest and our shining heroes. With this resolution tonight, we remember all of them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, actually I'm pleased to be here on a Saturday because we should be here on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and through the entire week to address the issue of energy independence for this Nation. People who drive up to the gas pump want some relief from high energy costs. People who get their bill at home and are struggling to pay that high power bill are being challenged, people on fixed incomes, and also, the country's being held hostage now importing so much fossil fuel.

And this is all supposed to be about climate change. We all want to preserve and protect the climate. We had a little piece of this in the T&I Committee. But actually we could make a big impact, because if you look at the emissions into the atmosphere that are causing global warming and some of the problems, power generation is one of the biggest generators of that pollution and degradation of our environment. And then transportation, all you've got to do is look at the cars and trucks and the use of energy and then polluting our environment and adding to the warming of the climate.

But unfortunately, in our committee markup, Republicans tried to add some real energy policy changes to this bill, and they didn't accept them, the Democrats didn't accept them. For example, Congresswoman Thelma Drake from Virginia, she had an excellent amendment to lift some of the limitation on congestion mitigation and air

quality funds to allow the CMAQ money, this type of money the Federal Government allows, to be used for capacity expansion projects.

The Democrats claim that this legislation is about climate change, and really, the leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions, as I said, is traffic and, actually, congestion.

Addressing the problem of congestion, if we'd done that, we would really be doing much more for a solution to reduce emissions and improve our air quality. That was turned down by the other side. I could give you a lot of statistics, and I'll include them in the Record of what it would do. So the Democrats rejected this effort.

Let's look at another Republican recommendation. Sam Graves, an outstanding representative from Missouri and one of the ranking members, offered an amendment in committee, and it was included in the Republican alternative, to streamline the pipeline permitting process to allow just for repairs, and it was rejected. This is getting some of the fossil fuel on a temporary basis to where it needs to go and also for gas and other substances that make us less dependent on the fossil fuels that cause pollution.

And finally, the Republicans offered an alternative that the Democrats refused to make in order that identify deepwater ports that we can use for L&G facilities to bring in liquefied natural gas on an expedited basis when it's in the national interest. So, again, we become less reliant on the types of fossil fuels that pollute and cause global warming.

So we attempted to work with the other side for real solutions that we could have put in in addressing the problems that transportation contributes again to global warming and these bad emissions in our atmosphere were rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Might I inquire again about the time remaining?

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

First, on the issue of capacity expansion process, studies have shown that improving traffic flow at more than 200 identified bottlenecks would reduce carbon emissions by as much as 77 percent. That's that single lane.

On the bridge in Massachusetts, the Democrats were all in favor of taking down a 100-year old bridge and replacing it. We are replacing that bridge. That new bridge will be in place. Now they found out that the old bridge will block the liquified natural gas tankers from going up. They wanted that bridge removed. That bridge is still going to be there and blocking their natural gas from getting to where it needs to go. Unbelievable.

Madam Speaker, today as I entered the grounds of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and approached the Warrior Transition Brigade Headquarters, I saw the name ``Vaccaro Hall.'' This morning the United States Army dedicated Vaccaro Hall in honor of my constituent, Corporal Angelo J. Vaccaro, from Deltona who lost his life performing heroic actions in Afghanistan. It was my honor to personally congratulate Corporal Vaccaro's wife, mother and father on the well deserved recognition of Corporal Angelo Vaccaro's heroic actions.

The late Corporal Vaccaro, his wife and parents have been part of the Seventh Congressional District in Central Florida. His distinguished service to our country as a medic in the United States Army earned Corporal Vaccaro the honor of being the first member of the Armed Services to receive two Silver Star medals during the Global War on Terror.

Corporal Vaccaro was the loving husband of Dana and the youngest son of Nelson and Linda Vaccaro. He led by example and never boasted of his accomplishments and efforts on the battlefield.

Born in New York, Corporal Vaccaro moved to Deltona, FL where he lived until he joined the Army on March 14, 2004. According to family and friends, Corporal Vaccaro had found his place in life as a medic with the Army's 10th Mountain Division.

Corporal Vaccaro's honorable service to our nation included a deployment to Afghanistan. He conducted more than 140 patrols and heroically risked his life in order to save the lives of fallen comrades. On one such occasion, Vaccaro's platoon came under heavy enemy fire and Vaccaro and four others suffered significant injuries. Ignoring his wounds and still battling Taliban forces, Corporal Vaccaro used his own body to shield fellow soldiers from the enemy while he dragged the wounded to safety and began emergency medical treatment. Corporal Vaccaro's actions during this battle earned him his first Silver Star.

Corporal Vaccaro's second Silver Star was a result of his final heroic actions that saved two of his injured comrades in need of immediate evacuation from the battlefield. While serving as the senior line medic at the Koregal Outpost in Afghanistan, Corporal Vaccaro learned that members of his platoon had come under attack by Taliban forces and that two of them required immediate medical attention. Despite being informed that an ambush was in place for any attempted rescue efforts, Corporal Vaccaro volunteered for the mission without hesitation. Soon after reaching the battle site and while assisting in the successful evacuation of all the wounded, Corporal Vaccaro was struck and killed by a rocket propelled grenade. The country lost a true American hero.

In addition to the Army naming the building that houses Walter Reed's Warrior Transition Brigade Headquarters to Vaccaro Hall and the two Silver Star medals, Corporal Vaccaro earned two Purple Hearts and the Army's Bronze Star for his actions during battle. In June the Army named Fort Drum's new state-of-art medical training facility that was opened on the day that Vaccaro was killed in battle, the Bridgewater- Vaccaro Medical Training Simulator Center.

Madam Speaker, with the passing of Corporal Angelo Vaccaro, America has lost a hero, an outstanding citizen and a shining example of service to our nation. He will be remembered as a patriotic American, a loving husband, beloved son and a friend to numerous others. It was a pleasure to have attended the dedication of Vaccaro Hall at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and I am proud that those visiting Walter Reed will be reminded of Corporal Vaccaro's heroic sacrifice on behalf of his fellow Americans.