Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: 1. Project--Operable Unit-1 (OU-1) Cleanup at the Miamisburg Mound. Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: DOE, Other. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Miamisburg Mound. Address of Requesting Entity: Miamisburg, OH. Description of Request: $10,000,000 is authorized for the Miamisburg Mound site in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Miamisburg Mound site in Miamisburg, OH. The funding would be used by the Department of Energy for the Miamisburg Mound to complete the remaining clean up of Operable Unit I (OU-I). 2. Project--Integrated Electrical starter/Generator (IES/G). Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Air Force, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Air Force Research Laboratory. Address of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. Description of Request: $3,500,000 is authorized for an Integrated Electrical Starter/Generator in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. The funding would be used to help develop a pre-prototype, sensor-less IES/G to demonstrate the feasibility of supplying both main engine start function and the electrical power necessary to operate all aircraft systems. 3. Project--Security Forces Operations Facility. Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Air Force, Mil Con. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Address of Requesting Entity: Dayton, OH. Description of Request: $14,700,000 is authorized for a Security Forces Operations Facility in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base located at Dayton, OH. The funding would be used to house the operations of the 88th Air Base Wing Security Forces Squadron (88 SFS), which provides security and police services for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 4. Project--Tactical Metal Fabrication System (TacFab). Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, Engineering Center. Address of Requesting Entity: Dearborn, MI. Description of Request: $6,300,000 is authorized for the Tactical Metal Fabrication System in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, Engineering Center in Dearborn, MI. The funding being requested will help Tactical Metal Fabrication (TacFab) System design, develop and build a mobile, containerized foundry, deployable overseas as a companion to RMS, the Army's Rapid Manufacturing System. 5. Project--Open Source Research Centers. Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Air Force, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: National Air and Space Intelligence Center. Address of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. Description of Request: $3,000,000 is authorized for Open Source Research Centers in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is the National Air and Space Intelligence Center located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. This funding will provide support to government agencies that are over-burdened with classified research requirements and do not have resources to meet the open source requirements. In addition, the program will support the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the Ohio Department of Homeland Security with Open Source Requirements as well as support Open Source requirements for the new Department of Defense Africa Command and the US State Department. 6. Project--Metals Affordability Initiative. Requesting Member: Michael Turner. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Air Force, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Air Force Research Laboratory. Address of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. Description of Request: $14,000,000 is authorized for the Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) in fiscal year 2009. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. This funding will enable MAI to maintain leadership in the strategic aerospace metals industrial sector by using technology innovation to maintain global competitiveness while improving performance and increasing affordability of weapons systems.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank House leadership, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter, as well as the leaders from House Judiciary, Chairman John Conyers, and the Veterans Affairs Committee Chair and ranking member for their assistance in bringing H.R. 6048 to the floor today. I would like to thank our presiding Chair, Ellen Tauscher, also for her support of this bipartisan bill. This bill was originally included as an amendment to the House version of last year's National Defense Authorization Act when it passed the House by voice vote. The purpose of this bill is straightforward. It provides certainty to servicemembers deployed in a contingency operation that their child custody arrangements will be protected. Imagine the stress and conflict in serving your country and fearing that a court will take your children away because of your service. In some cases, courts have overturned established custody arrangements because a custodial parent has served our country in a contingency operation such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Recently, many cases have come to light where servicemembers who have been deployed have had their military service used against them in custody hearings. One such case was that of Eva Slusher. Eva spent nearly $25,000 and years trying to regain custody of her daughter after fighting courts that used her deployment as a factor against her. We have heard from other servicemembers who have had similar court battles. In fact, recently my office learned about a servicemember who during her custody proceedings was told by a judge that the mere possibility of her deployment weighed against the best interests of the child in denying her custody. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record two letters that were written to my office by servicemembers detailing their stories of how this legislation could have helped. One of those letters is from Heather Watkins, and I want to read some excerpts from that letter. She writes: At the time of the final custody hearing for my children, the court stated that even though he believed I was a good parent, my being stationed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower prevented me from being able to care for my children. Shared custody was granted. In a subsequent court proceeding, the court again stated that he believed I was a good parent and stated that, with the way of the world today, I cannot be sure that you will not be called off of shore duty and deployed back to sea. In June 2005, I was honorably discharged. It was implied to me by the court that once I was out of the Navy, I would be able to obtain custody of my children. This has not proven to be true. I was proud to serve my country in the Armed Forces for 13 years, but at this time I believe my children were the price I paid for the privilege of protecting the United States of America. Dear Sir and Madam, I urge you to support the Bill for amendment of the Service Members Civil Relief Act to provide for the protection of child custody for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in the support of a contingency operation as presented by Congressman Mike Turner. I have been separated/divorced from my ex-husband since 1998. At the time of my divorce I did not dream that my being a Proud Active member of the United States Armed Services could or would be utilized as a tool to separate me from my children. At the time of the final custody hearing for my children the court stated that even though he believed that I was a good parent, my being stationed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower prevented me from being able to care for my children. Shared custody was granted. I re-enlisted in 2001 on the advice of my lawyer to maintain work and income stability. My ship was in dry dock for many months of scheduled maintenance and I was on the shore duty portion of my enlistment contract. My next court date was in October 2001. At the time of my court date, the terrorist attack of September 11 against the United Stated of America was very fresh in the minds of the U.S. citizens and the court. He again stated that he believed that I was a good parent and stated that, with the way of the world today, I cannot be sure that you will not be called off of shore duty and deployed back to sea. The court also voiced concerns that I would join the reserves and not be available to my children. The custody arrangement for my children was left unchanged. In June 2005, I was Honorably Discharged. It was implied to me by the court that once I was out of the Navy, I would be able to obtain custody of my children. This has not proven to be true. As of today, I do not have custody of my children. The court does not wish to hear this case again. I have permission to change venue but am unable to find a Judge or court that will hear my case. I have not spoken to or had other contact with my children since 12-26-2007. My calls to them have been unanswered and unreturned. I have been unable to get any assistance on local or state levels. I was proud to serve my country in the Armed Forces for 13 years but at this time I believe my children were the price I paid for the privilege of protecting the United States of America. Again, I urge you to support this Bill as presented by Congressman Mike Turner and prevent any other children being separated from loving parents by virtue of their serving their country. Respectfully, Heather A. Watkins. Another letter I have is from Eva Slusher, and she writes that she was a full-time member of the Kentucky Army National Guard, proudly serving her country for nearly 19 years. In February of 2003, she was called to Active Duty to support the war on terror. She writes: Initially, it was believed that I was going to Iraq, but once we arrived at Fort Knox, it was decided that our Personnel Services Detachment would be better used at Fort Knox to assist with the large number of troops mobilizing and that they were not equipped to facilitate. When I was alerted, I had three days to report. As a single parent, I made arrangements for my child, packed her up and moved her, and wrapped up all my affairs, financial and otherwise, in those three days. My ex-husband and I decided that Sara should stay with him while I was gone, but that it would only be temporary and that she would come back home when our tour was over. After her tour was over, custody to her was refused. In August 2004, we went to court. I was under the impression that we were there to have my rights as the custodial parent enforced as no one had filed a motion to change custody. However, the next week I received the ruling that Sara was to stay with her father as she was settled in and that was in her best interest. I was penalized for the time spent away from her in service of my country. She ends with: Everyone wants to talk about supporting our troops. I beg you to support this legislation in order to support our troops. May 19, 2008. Members of Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Members of Congress: I am writing this letter in reference to Congressman Turner's Bill, HR 6048. I, personally, experienced the injustice of losing custody of my child, for no other reason than service to my country. It cost me 2 years of anguish and nearly $25,000 to get my daughter back. This proposed legislation is necessary to prevent this discrimination against our servicemembers. I am LT Eva Slusher (formerly Crouch). I am a full time member of the Kentucky Army National Guard, proudly serving my country and State for nearly 19 years. I joined the military when I was 17 years old and a senior in high school. The military has paid for my college education and provided me with reliable, steady employment all of these years. I am also a mother. My daughter, Sara, was born in 1994. Her father and I were divorced in 1996. When we divorced, I was award primary physical custody of my daughter, and her father had visitation. My military service was not questioned. This arrangement went unchallenged, even when I moved over 150 miles away from my ex-husband. I raised that child by myself, without any help from him while I worked full time and put myself through college. Sara was my life. Every day revolved around her. I volunteered at her school every other Monday (my day off); she played softball, soccer and cheered. I was an assistant coach of her soccer and cheerleading. I cooked dinner, helped with homework, bathed her and read her bedtime stories every night. I was an exceptional, loving and attentive mother. In February 2003, I was called to active duty to support the War on Terror. Initially, it was believed that I was going to Iraq, but once we arrived at Ft. Knox, it was decided that our Personnel Services Detachment would be of better use at Ft. Knox to assist with the large number of troops mobilizing that they were not equipped to facilitate. When I was alerted, I had 3 days to report. As a single parent, I had to make arrangements for my child, pack her up and move her and wrap up all of my affairs (financial and otherwise) in those 3 days. My ex-husband and I decided that Sara should stay with him while I was gone, but that it would only be temporary and that she would come back home when my tour was over. I was very fortunate to have stayed in country and close enough that I could visit with Sara on the weekends. Nearly every weekend, I drove the 4\1/2\ hours from Ft. Knox to Ashland, KY to see her. I would pick her up and we'd stay in a hotel, and go to movies, dinner, shopping, etc. Many weekends, I would stop by Frankfort on my way and pick up one of her friends, so she could stay in touch with them. I spent about $300 per trip on gas money, hotels, food and entertainment, but it was all worth it to be with my daughter. On July 20, 2004, as I pulled into my driveway, I called my ex-husband on the cell phone and told him I was home and that I would be picking Sara up the next day, and to please have her things packed. His response was ``Not without a court order''. Until that moment, no one made any indication to me that Sara would not be coming home as planned. I immediately hired an attorney to file a motion to have my daughter returned to me. In August 2004, we went to court. I was under the impression that we were there to have my rights as the custodial parent enforced, as no one filed a motion for change of custody. However, the next week I received the ruling that Sara was to stay with her father, as she was settled in there and it was in her ``best interest''. I was penalized for the time spent away from her in service to my country. When I got divorced the courts deemed me a fit parent, but now, suddenly, because I served my country, I should not be allowed to raise my child anymore? I was completely appalled! It never occurred to me that this could happen. Soldiers are protected under the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, or so I thought; an employer has to give me my job back after I return from a deployment, but they don't have to give me my child back? That is insane! I was devastated. After having a life that was so full of her, I now came home to an empty house every day! I didn't know what to do with myself! Sara was terribly distraught over the whole situation, to the point that we had to take her to Cincinnati Children's Hospital for stomach problems, all stress related. I only got to see her every other weekend, and she would cry and beg me not to make her go back. It ripped my heart out! Why would a parent put his child through all of this? The real question is: How could our justice system allow this to happen? I still don't have an answer for that. After the Court ruling, I hired a new lawyer and we appealed the ruling. In September 2005, they ruled in my favor and my ex-husband appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court. In September 2006, they also ruled in my favor and my daughter came home on October 15, 2006. I spent more than 2 years and between $20,000 and $25,000 in legal fees. Sara is now a happy, healthy, well adjusted child, but I lost so much time with her, and she is not the child I set out to raise. Our lives were turned upside down and the results are everlasting. All of this because I was deployed . . . It is a disgraceful injustice to punish a Soldier for their service. The military has done so much for me: a college education, a way to pay my bills and feed my family, a sense of honor and pride . . . When they called on me to do my part, what should I have done? Said ``No thanks, I need to stay home . . .'' Even if that were an option, which it is not, I could not do that. It is not the right thing to do. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage: these are the things I stand for, should I lose my child for that? What kind of message is that sending? How is the United States Military supposed to recruit when you send a message like that? Don't we, as Soldiers, already sacrifice enough? How is a Soldier to concentrate on his/her mission while worrying about what will happen to their children? No Soldier should have to incur the emotional and financial cost that I have, only because they serve their country. I have my daughter back home with me, but I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to others if I can do anything about it. Since my story was publicized, I have learned that many other Soldiers have also had to deal with similar situations. Not to mention that every unmarried parent in the military, and every parent that has children from previous relationships and any parent that may be divorced in the future has to be concerned with whether or not they may be penalized for their service. This is not the way to treat our military service members. Due to the nature of military service, there really needs to be guidance at the federal level. This issue needs to be spelled out as it is in Congressman Turner's Bill: (1) No court may permanently alter an existing custody agreement while a military parent is deployed; (2) Upon the return of the service member from deployment, any temporary change in custody shall be immediately reversed; and (3) No court may consider a military parents' deployment in determining the best interest of the child. Had this been the law in 2004, my daughter and I would not have had to deal with the separation, stress, expense and lifelong effects of a prolonged custody battle. Everyone wants to talk about supporting our troops, I beg you to support this legislation in order to support troops. We are not asking for any special consideration, only that our military service not be used against us. Very Respectfully, V. Eva Slusher, Frankfort, KY. She has since regained custody of her daughter. This bill prevents judges from changing the custody arrangements of servicemembers and their children during a servicemember's deployment unless clear and convincing evidence says a change would be in the best interest of the child. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that while one parent is deployed, another party cannot permanently change custody arrangements. Temporary orders may be enacted and entered until the serving parent returns. Additionally, the bill requires a return to the original predeployment custody arrangement after the servicemember returns from the contingency operation. And, finally, the bill prohibits the use of a servicemember's absence because of their deployment, or the possibility of deployment, against that servicemember when ascertaining the best interest of the child. Their service cannot be used against them. Much is asked of our servicemembers, and mobilization can disrupt and strain relationships at home. This additional protection is needed to provide them peace of mind that the courts will not take away their children because they answered the country's call to serve or have the possibility of being called to serve. This bill protects them and it protects their children. Again, I thank the House leadership for their support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, as well as Natural Resources full committee Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young, for their support in bringing this bill to the floor today. H.R. 4191, the Wright Brothers-Dunbar National Historical Park Designation Act, is identical to H.R. 4612 from the 109th Congress which passed the House Committee on Resources by unanimous consent on June 21, 2006. It renames the Dayton Aviation National Historic Park as the Wright Brothers-Dunbar National Historical Park. In 2002, Chairman and Federal Judge Walter Rice of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission appointed a committee made up of commission members to make recommendations regarding the name of the Dayton Aviation National Historic Park. The committee held several hearings and solicited comments from businesses, government, stakeholders, neighborhood and citizens groups on the name change. Based on the public comments, the committee recommended to the commission that the name of the park, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, be changed to the Wright Brothers-Dunbar National Historical Park. Following input from the community, that committee recommended to the commission that the name of the park be changed to the Wright Brothers- Dunbar National Historical Park, which was approved by the full commission and the National Park Service in 2003. The commission recognized a number of reasons for the name change. The new name establishes a clear connection to the universally recognized Wright brothers, the inventors of the airplane, and the new name also creates a better link between the park and the primary park assets. All four of the park sites, a majority of interpretive exhibits and media at the park sites describe the accomplishments of the Wright brothers and the first recognized African American Poet Laureate, Paul Laurence Dunbar. Finally, the new name also establishes a better distinction between the park and the new National Aviation Heritage Area. The new name of this park will truly be a reflection of Dayton's heritage, that of innovation and creativity. The Wright brothers' airplane and Dunbar's famous poems are two historic assets which make Dayton a great place to call home. It is fitting that the new park name pays homage to Dayton's hometown heroes, Paul Laurence Dunbar and Orville and Wilbur Wright. It is also important to note that the National Heritage Park in Dayton is unique in that it is a scattered site national park and it works with regional partners to advance the park's mission. The Park Service partners with ``Dayton History'' at Carillon Park and Wright- Patterson Air Force Base to provide maintenance and program assistance for park assets. Both entities contain different parts of the national park. The Wright Flyer III, the world's first practical airplane, is located at Carillon Park, and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, where the Wright brothers perfected flight, is located on the grounds of Wright- Patterson Air Force Base. This bill authorizes grant funding to these partner organizations to ensure their continued cooperation with the Park Service in fulfilling the mission of the park. Mr. Speaker, today's bill is the result of a community process which has resulted in an improved and more appropriate name to a regional asset, a name which reflects Dayton's true heritage. While Ohio is the birthplace of aviation, Dayton is the birthplace of the first airplane and the birthplace of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where 1 million people every year visit the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Dayton's future is bright, with over 1,000 jobs headed to Wright- Patterson Air Force Base as a result of 2005 BRAC process, and it will continue to be a leader in American innovation. Mr. Speaker, the Wright brothers and Paul Laurence Dunbar would be proud of the accomplishments in their hometown, and I am proud today to speak for this bill, which will honor their legacies.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 39 (Republican Motion to Recommit) and 41 (Adoption of H. Res. 947) I was present for the vote however my voting card malfunctioned and did not record my votes. Had my voting card not malfunctioned, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 39 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 41.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their leadership in completing the conference report for FY08 National Defense Authorization Act. On December 6, Chairman Skelton announced that an agreement had been reached on the conference report stating that ``this bill supports the troops, restores readiness, and improves accountability.'' I would like to point out that this bill includes a key policy provision that directly supports our troops. This bill will amend the Service Members Civil Relief Act to protect the children and custody arrangements of servicemembers deployed in a contingency operation. This provision is important because it protects our deployed troops from courts that have been overturning established custody arrangements while a servicemember is serving our country in a contingency operation such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Today, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill because it provides the child custody protection that our deployed troops deserve. Much is asked of our servicemembers, and mobilization can disrupt and strain relationships at home. This additional protection is needed to provide them peace of mind that the courts will not undertake judicial proceedings considering their established custody rights without them. This amendment protects them, and it protects their children.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1093, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 968, I mistakenly voted ``nay.'' I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. TURNER

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

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

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, today Iraq remains the most important issue facing our Nation. The American people want congressional action in a bipartisan fashion. The rhetoric of the last 6 months has left the American people saddened that the work on this House floor has been focused upon partisan division. The most important action this House of Representatives could take today is to support our troops by coming together in a bipartisan effort. I want to thank Chairman Skelton, and I also want to thank subcommittee Chairman Abercrombie for his leadership on H.R. 3087, which gives us an opportunity for a bipartisan step in the Iraq debate. I am a cosponsor of this bill, which was reported out of the Armed Services Committee by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 55-2. H.R. 3087, as amended, supports our troops, our national interests, and our counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. The bill requires our Department of Defense to undertake robust and comprehensive contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq. The bill recognizes that the role and mission of our Armed Forces in Iraq will change and properly acknowledges that the Government of Iraq must be responsible for Iraq's future. As America's responsibilities shift, our focus must include planning to protect our vital national interests and our troops. In a letter I sent to our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, on August 1, 2007, I elaborated saying that, for example, this bill states the contingency planning element should include ensuring appropriate protection for the Armed Forces in Iraq, providing appropriate protection in Iraq for United States civilians, contractors and third-party nationals, and Iraqi nationals who have assisted the United States mission in Iraq, maintaining and enhancing the ability of the United States Government to eliminate and disrupt al Qaeda, and affiliated terrorist organizations and preserving military equipment necessary to defend the national security interests of the United States. I want to thank Chairman Abercrombie for his leadership on this bill and for his insistence that this bill come to the House floor for a vote. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Representative English of Pennsylvania, who worked with the original bipartisan legislation with Representative Tanner.

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the committee chairman, Neil Abercrombie, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Castle from Delaware.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chair again for his leadership for this bipartisan legislation, where this body will be able to come together for the important statement on the war in Iraq and for the important planning that needs to ensue.

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Shays from Connecticut.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Lamborn from Colorado.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Stearns of Florida. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the Wright brothers first accomplished flight, when they stretched out the wings of their airplane and began to fly and then returned to continue their work at Huffman Prairie in Dayton, Ohio, which later became Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, they could not have known the importance of their invention to preserving our freedoms and to preserving liberty. But they could imagine the bravery of the pilots that were to follow. With this resolution, we honor the men and women who have served in the United States Air Force.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, today I speak in support of House Resolution 604, which expresses the Nation's appreciation and thanks for the servicemembers of the 303rd Bombardment Group (Heavy) upon the occasion of the final reunion of the 303rd Bomb Group Association. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to learn that the 303rd Bomb Group Association will dissolve following their final reunion this week in Arlington, Virginia. The declining number of these courageous veterans makes it difficult for the association to continue their annual reunions. With that being said, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to the valiant men of the 303rd Bombardment Group known as ``Hell's Angels.'' Activated in February 1942 at Pendleton, Oregon, the 303rd was an Eighth Air Force Bomber Group that flew the mighty B-17 Flying Fortress out of Molesworth, England. Living up to their adopted motto, ``Might in Flight,'' the air crews flew a record 364 combat missions against enemy targets, the most of any B-17 Bomb Group in the Eighth Air Force during World War II. For its actions in the skies over Europe, the group was awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation in January 1944, two of the heroic crew men of the 303rd were awarded with Congressional Medal of Honor, and four earned the Distinguished Service Cross. For all of their accomplishments, the members of the Bomb Group paid a heavy price in casualties, aircraft losses, and capture by the enemy. Their determination to complete the mission regardless of the opposition or the odds carried them through their losses and on to victory in the air. Mr. Speaker, given the history of outstanding service by the 303rd Bombardment Group during World War II, as well as the last reunion of the veterans of the 303rd taking place this week, it is fitting that we take the time today to recognize and honor their service. I therefore strongly urge all my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I recognize Mr. McCotter of Michigan for such time as he might consume.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. McCotter for bringing forth this resolution so that this body might honor the 303rd. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.