Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere condolences to the people of Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia affected by severe flooding in recent weeks. The epic flooding is the worst the region has seen in 120 years. Making matters worse, there are reports that landmines from the most recent Balkan war are being shifted due to the landslides, only adding to the dangers of people and rescuers in the affected areas.

Having experienced flooding that displaces families myself and, more importantly, having served in the region during my military career, the people of the Balkans hold a special place in my heart. My thoughts and prayers are with them, and I wish them Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to the outrageous, the almost unimaginable findings from the ongoing VA inspector general's review of the Phoenix Health Care System and now some two dozen other facilities.

The stated VHA goal is a 14-day wait for a first-time primary care appointment--14 days, 2 weeks. It is a little much for some, but it seems appropriate, reasonable for many. That is their goal. Whether I agree with it or not, that is their goal.

However, I am going to read from the executive summary of the inspector general's allegations:

``Allegations at the Phoenix HCS include gross mismanagement of VA resources and criminal misconduct by VA senior hospital leadership, creating systemic patient safety issues and possible wrongful deaths. While our work is not complete, we have substantiated that significant delays in access to care negatively impacted the quality of care at this medical facility.''

Mr. Speaker, that is breathtaking. That is breathtaking. This is our Federal Government.

Falsified data reported last year by Phoenix HCS showed veterans waited, on average, 24 days for their first primary care appointment. Falsified data said that they waited an average of 24 days; however, the recent IG report found that veterans actually waited, on average, 115 days for their first primary care appointment, with approximately 84 percent of those waiting more than 14 days, which was the stated goal.

Mr. Speaker, 115 days for their first appointment. That is the appointment where you go talk to the doctor and you tell him what is wrong or what you think is wrong and he starts making an assessment. That is not treatment. That is just an appointment with the doctor. Mr. Speaker, 115 days.

To put it another way, VA management at Phoenix HCS met 16 percent of its wait time goal, and those folks still received bonuses for that action. The folks that do the work got a bonus for meeting 16 percent of their goal.

When people say to you, as a Representative, there are things wrong with the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, this is what is wrong with the Federal Government. Even after cooking the books, the stated goal of an average 14-day wait time was not met. Even after that.

Now, I was proud to vote for Chairman Miller's VA Accountability Act last week, but it is a shame--I don't know what it is--that it takes an act of Congress to fire somebody in the Federal Government. If you are the Secretary and you find somebody that has done something wrong--and in these cases, potentially criminal--and you can't fire them, what is going on here?

Now, this is not a new circumstance. We have actually known about it for years. Republicans--and I have been here a year and a half--and, I imagine, Democrats have been complaining for years about this because they see it in their districts. But nothing has been done. And some will say, well, Congress hasn't appropriated the right money. Three times the amount of money since 2001 has gone to the VA for care--for care. Three times it has been increased.

Mr. Speaker, where the President says he has got a pen and a phone, I beseech you--I beseech him to call up a

veteran in this circumstance. Use the phone. Use your pen for an executive order and fix this. It is not the words, Mr. President--we are all frustrated, and we are all infuriated by this--but it is actions. These are members of the military, men and women who have served, men and women of action. Words are cheap, Mr. Speaker. It is actions that we require.

JFK said in one of his speeches that a nation is revealed by whom it honors. What is revealed by what is happening now, what has been happening, and what hasn't been happening?

Now, just to kind of show where our priorities are, let's talk about what you can get with an access card. This gentleman I am reading about bought a swordfish steak at $18.99 a pound or went to the gourmet coffee section and ground up some roasted fresh beans. I guess it is okay to buy your Halloween candy with an access card. We can provide an access card for that, but we can't find a way to provide for the veterans who took an oath?

Mr. Speaker, they said:

I will defend this country, I will lay my life down, and I

won't question. Mine is not to ask why, mine is to do or die.

Our side of the deal is that we pay, we equip you, and prepare you to fight and win, and after you come home all busted up and changed, we will take care of you.

Oh, that is what we say, but apparently that is not what we do. We can find a way to pay for these things, but not for that obligation.

Mr. Speaker, resignation is fine. But that is not going to fix it. We request the administration to take action and fix it.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf for offering me this opportunity.

This amendment prohibits the funding for NASA's Advanced Food Technology project, the AFT. The AFT project is responsible for providing spaceflight crews with a food system that is safe, nutritious, and acceptable to the crew while efficiently balancing appropriate vehicle mass, volume, waste, and food preparation time for exploration missions to Mars. The problem is we are not going to Mars anytime soon.

Since we have accepted as a fact that other nations such as Russia will be taking the lead on space exploration and we have no plans to go back into space over the next fiscal year--at least to Mars--there is no reason to waste taxpayer money on food research for a mission to Mars.

This project has been highlighted as a source of waste for years by my colleagues in the United States Senate, starting with NASA's use of taxpayer money to develop pizza and hundreds of other recipes for, again, a mission to Mars, which NASA has no plans to undertake. I want to ensure that taxpayer funding is not wasted on projects that are not going to happen.

I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding the chairman accepts the amendment. If that is the case, I yield to the chairman.

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

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 237, I inadvertently voted in the affirmative when I intended to vote in the negative. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate four members of the Pennsylvania National Guard who placed among the top four teams in the national Sullivan Cup armor competition, held on May 11-15 of this year, in Fort Benning, Georgia.

Sergeant First Class Bryan Bailey, Sergeant Michael Schultz, Specialist Timothy Humpal, and Specialist Zachary Zondory represented the 3-103rd Armor Battalion, 55th Armored Brigade, 28th Infantry Division, who came in fourth out of only 17 U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and Canadian tank crews.

The toughness, skill level, and experience demonstrated by our Guard soldiers is further proof that the 55th Armored Brigade not only is one of the elite brigades in the entire U.S. Army, but that the Guard is-- absolutely is--ready, trained, and capable.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Graves from Missouri for taking the lead on this amendment, and I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for including this amendment in this en bloc package.

After 12 years of combat coming to a close and shifting security priorities, a commission to evaluate Army force structure is, indeed, appropriate. The Pentagon is still operating with assumptions, metrics and policies from the early 2000s. What we need to be doing is looking at shaping the force of the future. What the future missions and force mixture between active-guard-reserve should be is a question that should be thoroughly assessed.

To determine how the future of our total Army will be shaped for decades to come, we should select the more comprehensive commission and take the additional few months to do a comprehensive analysis with the best personnel and minds available.

Madam Chairman, the security of the Nation depends upon it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor East Berlin, Pennsylvania, on its 250th anniversary. The borough was founded on May 8, 1764, by John Frankenberger, a Prussian, who purchased 200 acres of land from Thomas and Richard Penn.

John laid out a town with 85 lots, one main street, four cross streets, and five alleys. He named the town ``Berlin'' after his native town in Prussia. East was added to the name in 1827, when the town post office was established.

Today, East Berlin is a thriving community of over 1,400 residents in Adams County. I am proud to congratulate East Berlin on this momentous day and wish the borough another successful 250 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and recognition of Israel's Independence Day.

Israel is one of our closest allies in the Middle East, and for 66 years it has been the stronghold of democracy and a model for those who seek freedom and prosperity.

The success of the Jewish State makes it a target for oppressive regimes that seek the destruction of Western ideals, such as the advancement of women's rights.

Iran is chief among these threats. It has openly and repeatedly called for Israel's eradication. This threat may become a reality if Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, we simply can't allow that to happen.

This administration must be clear-eyed in dealing with Iran, and it must do whatever is necessary to protect our vital interests in the region, including Israel.

With that, I offer my sincere congratulations to our Israeli friends on this 66th anniversary of their country's independence and wish them a very happy and prosperous Independence Day.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to discuss the comments made recently by Secretary Kerry regarding Israel and apartheid.

I am not going to be one of the many people that are probably calling for Secretary Kerry's resignation in that regard. I too work in the arena of public policy, and I understand that sometimes you make mistakes in the things you say, you say things that you didn't necessarily intend to say.

I think it is very instructive to talk about it for just a few moments here. I want to remind everybody that Israel first fought a War of Independence in 1948 and 1949, and then fought again in 1967 in the Six Day War and then again in 1973 with the Yom Kippur War.

During these periods of time, they were attacked, unilaterally attacked by their neighbors. Some people say: Well, we need to go back to those pre-1967 borders. I ask anybody who was attacked, who has been in a fight where somebody sucker-punched them, who was the aggressor, why is it incumbent upon Israel to return the spoils of the war? Folks attacked them, they fought the war, and they won, and they want to secure their population. Because of that, some people think that somehow Israel is the oppressor. They reacted to an act of aggression.

I just want to also read statements from President Obama from 2008 regarding the usage of the term ``apartheid'':

There's no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have

tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states

living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a

term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that

goal. It's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and

it's not what I believe.

That is not what Americans believe either.

I think for me and what I want to tell anybody that is watching and anybody that is listening is, this should be proof positive; finally, the evidence of what many conservatives and many people who support Israel have been saying for the last 6 years. Finally, what we are seeing is--if this isn't proof, I don't know what is--the thoughts and the feeling and the mindset and what is in the heart of this administration regarding Israel. This is what they believe. This is who they are.

If you support Israel as the only ally, the only true ally for America in that part of the world, if that is who you support, then you must recognize this for what this is, Mr. Speaker. It is an abandoning. It is not only an abandoning of our ally, our great ally and our true friend, but is a castigation of who they are.

When we think about what apartheid is, Israel doesn't represent any of that. It is an open democracy that lets people live freely and participate within the confines of their security situation, and as the representative before me discussed, rockets being rained down upon them, homicide bombers coming into their children's school and blowing up their children, blowing up their buses on a busy street or a cafe where people are just trying to have a meal. That is their daily life. And we are supposed to castigate them for defending their nation, for their leaders defending their nation against that, and that is somehow apartheid?

The physical, racial, financial, I mean the spiritual and emotional oppression for the sake of race, that is apartheid. That is not what Israel is doing. That is not what Israel is about. That is not what Israel has done. Israel has tried to live peaceably in that region of the world among its neighbors. It has fought to exist. It fights every day to exist.

For the Secretary of State to use that term in describing who Israel is, what they are as a people, what they are as a government, it is not only reprehensible, it in my mind truly defines, it very clearly illustrates what this administration believes. So if you are a supporter of Israel, if you are a supporter of the only ally, the true ally of

the United States in that region of the world, it is time for you to take stock. If you have been a supporter of this administration, it is time for you to take stock in that support. Is it justified? Is it realistic? Is it what you really believe? Because if you believe what this administration believes, then you believe that the only answer is for Israel to continue to give, to give of itself to its neighbors who hate it, who are continually trying to destroy it, who refuse after all these years--1947--after all these years, continue to refuse as a matter of just negotiation to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a state.

How much longer will it take, Mr. Speaker? How many more years until these other organizations--you know, the taxpayers, the United States taxpayers, fund the Palestinian Authority and their effort to pay stipends to prisoners who blow up Israelis, who blow them up. It is seen as their job. It is like a paycheck. If you go to prison, you get paid for doing it, and the more heinous it is, the more you get paid.

Yet, somehow Israel is supposed to turn the other cheek yet again and give of itself to people that blow it up. Even after they give, let's face it, after they give, because they have offered to give time and time and time again, we all know, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be enough. Because the people that call Jews and Israel descendants of apes and dogs and pigs, they are not going to stop thinking that just because Israel agrees to whatever concession they demand. They won't stop until there is no Israel. That is their goal. That has been their stated goal, and it hasn't changed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again highlight to anybody that has supported this administration because of their support for Israel, see what it is, look it in the face. It has shown itself finally for what it truly is. It is not support of Israel, it is support of a political agenda that makes Israel continue to bleed, and it is unacceptable for the United States of America to turn its back on this longstanding ally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jane Tucker of Dallastown, Pennsylvania, who was honored at today's Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus Awards.

Jane endured years of life-threatening physical and mental abuse at the hands of her first husband in the 1950s. With tenacity and perseverance, she devoted decades of her life to founding ACCESS-York, York County, Pennsylvania's service provider for victims fleeing domestic violence.

Jane continues to this very day, this very moment, as a volunteer at ACCESS-York, and she serves as the inspiration and motivation to countless victims who turn to ACCESS-York for help, understanding and protection. She is the epitome of resilience, strength, compassion and integrity. From a battered mother to a founding mother of ACCESS-York, Jane Tucker's life is a story of triumph over tragedy, and I am absolutely proud and humbled to be part of honoring her accomplishment with the unsung hero award today.

Madam Speaker, many people that each of us meet as Representatives in our home district say that things are wrong with Washington, and they give us a list.

Of course, one of the big things is the misspending of their money, and they are right. They say: Why aren't you doing something about it?

Oftentimes, the answer is: look, it is complicated, we have a House of Representatives, we have a Senate, and we don't always agree, and then we have to get the President to sign something.

On this occasion, something can be done; it is just not being done. In April 2011, the Palestinian Authority registry published a government resolution granting all Palestinian prisoners imprisoned in Israel for security and terror-related offenses a monthly salary from the authority--a monthly salary, like a job.

Imagine if your job was to blow up people, tear their limbs off, and send hot pieces of metal through their bodies and watch their bloody corpses being dragged through the street.

If that was your job, you would get a salary for that. Who in America pays--we put people in prison for that, we put people to death for that; yet American taxpayers are paying people overseas to do just that. Words mean things. They pay a salary.

The Authority defined eligible beneficiaries as anyone imprisoned in Israel's prison as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation, as is already stated, the occupation; again, words mean things.

I wonder, people complain, and they call it an occupation of the Palestinian lands. Let's remember who attacked Israel. I wonder if the war had ended inside of Israel's borders, if the attackers would have given Israel's borders back. I wonder, but I doubt they would have. Words mean things. So if you are involved at all in this struggle, in this fight, in this killing, you get a salary.

Now, according to the Palestinian Authority's definition, as was already stated, more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners, as of December 2012, serving time for terror-related offenses are recipients of these salaries.

This means that Palestinians convicted of crimes such as theft do not receive a salary. However, Hamas and Fatah prisoners receive hefty payments--hefty.

According to the regulation and economic reports on government salaries, the monthly salaries to these prisoners range from $680 to $3,400 a month. Who couldn't use $3,400, especially at tax time? Yet we are sending it to people to kill people, literally.

Like many salaries, payments to prisoners follow a sliding scale based

on quality--quality of work. If your work is murdering other people, as Mr. Weber from Texas already stated, the more murder, the more mayhem, the higher the salary. It is unfathomable to us as Americans.

This is happening, and there is a few of us on the floor, but where is the rest of the Federal Government, Madam Speaker? Where is the Senate? Where is our President? Where is the Secretary of State? He knows this is happening, but it is us folks on the floor that are talking about it. He is not saying a word.

In this world, the more heinous the act of terrorism, the greater the salary; the more violent the terrorist act, the longer the Israeli prison sentence and, in turn, the higher the monthly compensation-- compensation for killing, so we are hiring hit men. American tax dollars are hiring hit men and hit women, and the policy literally incentivizes terrorism.

In May of 2009, GAO issued a report on this very subject, the Government Accountability Office. This is not Perry's rules; it is not Yoho's statistics. It is the GAO.

The report explained:

The U.S. Government is one of the largest donors to the

Palestinians.

One of the largest donors. Yet the GAO found incomplete compliance with even the minimal paperwork requirements for vetting procedures.

So we are giving them a pile of money, and as usual with the Federal Government, we are not checking up on them. We have no idea what they are spending it on. Well, we just found out, right? We just found out.

In many cases, it seems Federal agencies and offices merely went through the motions without proper vetting--so surprising. It is shocking to me that U.S. taxpayer dollars have been indirectly used to pay Palestinian terrorists' salaries.

Let me explain the indirectly part of it because it amounts to this year--this fiscal year--$440 million. $17 trillion in debt. Annual deficits for the last 5-6 years averaging about a trillion dollars; yet we are happy to hand away $440 million and some of which--a great deal of which is used to kill people.

So the Congress allocates that money to the Department of State. The Department of State then allocates a portion of that money to USAID, who then gives it to the Palestinian Authority general budget, which is extremely fungible, which means the first dollar or the last dollar-- the dollars don't care--of the $440 million, we are spending about $60 million--well, someone is--the Palestinian Authority's paying $60 million to these terrorists in salaries. $60 million of that $440 million is going to terrorists' salaries.

Now, I wonder how much we spent tracking down Nidal Hassan and convicting him. How much time did we spend? What about those victims? How much time, energy, and resources did we spend on the Tsarnaev brothers?

Terrorism, people that kill other people, yet while we spend American tax dollars to track them down, imprison them--in the case of Nidal Hassan, his rightful punishment, which is the death sentence--on this occasion, we actually pay people to kill our allies and even other Americans.

State and Federal Government sanction other nations for this kind of behavior. We sanction them. We say we are not going to give you things, we are going restrict you; yet on this occasion, the Palestinian Authority, we actually pay them.

I don't get it. As an American, I don't get it. I wonder too, in this time of executive orders, this is wholly within the purview of the executive branch.

There have been many times when people in this House have objected to the executive orders moved on by this administration, but on this occasion, I can't think of one person in this room that would say: oh, no, Mr. President, please don't stop the State Department from giving $440 million to the Palestinian Authority, so they can spend $60 million of hard-earned taxpayer money to pay for criminals that kill people.

Yet crickets, Madam Speaker, crickets.

Will the gentleman yield?

So based on this, how should our great ally Israel--how should the people of Israel view us, knowing that this is happening and knowing that no one outside these four

walls right now is talking about this? How should they view us?

Will the gentleman yield?

First I want to say thank you for your service as a Member of this body who has also served his Nation in uniform. Thank you, and how well you know and what you just spoke of.

I found it fascinating, on my most recent deployment to Iraq--it has been years now--we were mobilized to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I am sure you know it well. So you carry your weapon around with you 24 hours a day in your training because you must always be prepared, except--this is the fascinating part--except when you go to the PX, except when you go to the chow hall. Then you must find a place for your weapon. You must leave a soldier out in the parking lot to guard all the weapons, or what have you. And I am thinking to myself: Here I am, a commander of this task force. I have got men and women of all ages and all different backgrounds, and we are training and refining ourselves to go to war, to fight the enemy, to defend our Nation in arms, wearing your ballistic vest and all your gear, wearing a ballistic helmet so that if you do get shot, you are protected from that fire. But yet I am not trusted to carry my firearm on a military base.

So what we have seen during this administration is this horrific incident, the previous one with Nidal Hasan, and nothing has really changed. And now we see a repeat of it. Meanwhile, soldiers--men and women who are willing and ready to serve their country--are left defenseless and can't even turn to their own Constitution, which they take an oath to uphold and defend to protect them.

I find it the height of the dereliction of duty of this body and of this administration.

Well, as an officer, I qualified with a .9 millimeter, but of course everybody qualifies at some point M16, or an M4 now.

If the gentleman would yield, I am just curious--you have spent more time here than I have--what was the impetus for the current law which restricts DOD and commanders, as an installation commander myself, from exacting our own authority based on the Constitution?

Who is better trained than the United States military, the different branches serving on those bases and posts all around the country, all around the world, dealing with weapons on a daily basis, dealing with ammunition and its effects on a daily basis? Most of what you do revolves around ranges, firing, qualifications because we train. Readiness is important, and using the tools of the trade; whether you like it or not, they are weapons, because there are bad actors out there. And that is what they have to use to be able to fight back.

So that is the one place, specifically the one place on the planet where you would think that people would be able to. As you said, they are trained, are prepared, are knowledgeable, are familiar, are comfortable with. And yet this United States Government does not allow them to defend themselves and, more importantly, the oath and the very Constitution, the set of rules with which we govern this Nation.

When you raise your right hand and take that solemn oath, unfortunately under the current paradigm, under this current administration, when you take the oath to join the military, you are giving away the right to defend yourself while you are on a military base.

Certainly you and I can both attest to this. It is a sensitive, it is a controlled item. And from day one, you learn the very harsh reality that you do not ever, ever misplace your weapon. There are very serious penalties for misplacing your weapon. You learn to live with it, to sleep with it, to shower with it. It is you, and you are it. You are together at all times and all things. And accountability is paramount. That is what I mean. There can be no breach of this standard. And there is none. And the military trains you in that very acutely.

So, once again, I would say, there is no place where individuals--men and women--are more familiar, better trained, and more well equipped to deal with firearms than in the military, especially--specifically on a military base.

I do not. And I thank you for asking. But just thinking about it, the process by which a person joins and maintains the attendance, so to speak, in the military requires an investigation of your person, of your background, who you are, your capabilities, and so on and so forth. And for an administration, rightly so, very concerned about background checks and making sure that only those in our free country avail themselves of their Second Amendment right and not those who shouldn't, such as criminals, who would also not be allowed to either join the military or stay in the military, once again, I would say, there is no safer, no better a place than on a military base because all those folks have been vetted, have been checked, do carry a weapon.

So I find it interesting that maybe the military, maybe DOD has made a recommendation to the administration and said, part of the solution to Nidal Hasan and his heinous acts are to make sure that people can defend themselves, soldiers, servicemembers at different bases and different branches of the services can protect themselves under force of arms, if necessary, on base. But that has yet to be found out.

But it would be very interesting to know if DOD did make that recommendation and nothing was done about it, and nothing was done about it. If there was no cry from the administration to say, hey, Congress, this is a problem. Here is part of the solution set. Get to work.

As you said, we have already gotten to work on that here. But I suspect that that bill--well-intentioned, the right thing to do--will make it out of the House in due course but under this Senate and under this administration will languish. That is what my suspicion will be.

I agree with you on your assessment. I hope you are right about that. I hope you are right, that we accomplish something. It would be great if it wasn't partisan, if we could just do the right thing and allow people who have agreed to serve and take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution to then have the same protections of that Constitution availed to themselves. And that would be, in my opinion, the right thing to do regardless--regardless--of your party.

So I would hope that we would see that now, see that as a solution set to--look, on this current case, it appears that when confronted with a firearm, this individual who carried out this most recent crime and these atrocities at Fort Hood, when confronted with a firearm himself, that is when the carnage ended.

So it seems to me that maybe it won't stop it, but it certainly can mitigate it, and maybe if these folks in the future that would ponder such an act, if they knew that other members on post would be carrying, as well, they might be reluctant to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, recently recorded in political dialogue was a statement about one of my colleagues somehow feeling that his military service ``entitled him to a seat in Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, no one in the military feels that their service entitles them to anything. I am deeply disappointed in the implication that because I served my country, I feel entitled to serve in this esteemed body--or, for that matter, to anything. My colleague didn't pledge an oath of service to God and country because he felt he would get something in return.

Mr. Speaker, this type of statement not only is regrettable, reprehensible, and offensive, but it diminishes the sanctity of military service and those who tirelessly and selflessly dedicate themselves to it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor thirty-three exceptional young men and women from the 4th Congressional District of Pennsylvania who have been nominated to attend a United States Service Academy. I submit with great pride the following nominations:

Nominated to the United States Military Academy--Matthew Benjamin, Jacob Jenkins, Chance King, Sabrina Mortell, Josh Mueller, Graeme Nelson, Zachary Schaeffer, and Tom Snell;

Nominated to the United States Naval Academy--Reed Alioth, Dom Antonelli, Bonaire Berry, Tyler Dolmetsch, Joe Fletcher, Matthew Gregoire, Liam Handley, Jacob Jenkins, Ian Johnson, Noah Krechel, Madi Luckenbaugh, Evan Miller, Logan Morris, Josh Mueller, Hayley Murdouh, Seth Murphy-Sweet, Graeme Nelson, Briannah Rohrbaugh, Sarah Sheerin, and Billy Stolkovich;

Nominated to the United States Air Force Academy--Hank Anderson, Donny Crabill, Matt Dieffenbach, Steven Foster, Noah Krechel, Marlaina McConville, Darren Miller, Evan Miller, and Natalie Seitz; and

Nominated to the United States Merchant Marine Academy--Jon Tarbox.

These individuals have distinguished themselves among their peers as leaders who are committed to serving their country in uniform. As these highly motivated and talented young men and women progress through the academy selection process, let us remember and be grateful for the sacrifice they are preparing to make in the name of our country and our citizens. I commend each, and wish them Godspeed in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from House Resolution 417.