Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in recognition of the Lion's Club of Maple Shade, New Jersey as they celebrate 60 years of service to the township. This coming Sunday, July 10th, will mark the 60th anniversary of this great organization, which has become an important institution of community service in the local neighborhoods of Southern New Jersey.

The International Association of Lions Clubs is the largest service organization in the world with over 1.4 million members in more than 43,000 clubs covering 182 countries and geographic areas. Lions Clubs are not social clubs, although there are social benefits to membership. Rather, Lions Club members give their time, skills and resources to raise funds for charitable giving both in their communities and internationally.

The first organized meeting of the Maple Shade Lions Club was held in the Congregational Church on April 18, 1944. Arthur N. Cutler acted as temporary Chairman of the meeting and was later elected as the first President of the Maple Shade Lions. Since its inception, the Lion Club of Maple Shade has sponsored three clubs in New Jersey: Moorestown in April 1948, Burlington in February 1949, and Levittown (now Willingboro) in May 1959.

The Maple Shade Lions Club regularly donates money, services and needed items to organizations and projects such as the Decker Liver Transplant Fund, the Guide Dog Foundation, Camp Happiness, Camp Marcella, Recording for the Blind, Association of Blind Athletes, Lions Eye Research Foundation, Delaware Valley Eye Bank, Eye Institute of New Jersey, and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. In addition, they provide walkers, canes, and wheelchairs, as well as free eye exams and glasses for individuals in need. The Lions also donate funds to the Maple Shade youth sports leagues and the local Boy and Girl Scouts.

The Lions Club of Maple Shade has a simple motto: ``We Serve.'' The individual members of the Lions Club pride themselves on the many contributions that they have made to their community, and the citizens of Maple Shade owe them a sincere debt of gratitude for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the Lions Club of Maple Shade, New Jersey on their 60 years of loyal service, and expressing appreciation for their continued efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of his amendment.

When I was a child, the three largest employers in my district were a shipyard, a soup factory, and an electronics plant that made radios and television sets. Today, the three largest employers in my district are a mortgage company, a hospital, and the State government. I have seen what it means when your manufacturing base erodes and blows up and shrivels away.

When the country tries to solve this very important problem, we need all voices heard; and it disappoints me that the administration is trying to tackle this problem belatedly, without

hearing the two voices that are so very importantly added by this amendment: the steel industry, without which the country cannot defend itself and cannot continue as an industrial power; and the collectively bargained, duly elected voice of organized labor through labor unions.

Now, I know that sometimes the steel industry disagrees with the administration and, often, organized labor disagrees with the administration. But in our country, we do not just listen to people with whom we agree; we welcome all points of view, all interests so that we can come up with the best policy solution for the country.

The Kucinich amendment adds two very important voices: the steel industry and organized labor. Even if one does not agree with their positions on these issues, their positions ought to be heard as we approach the manufacturing atrophy of the United States of America.

So I would urge everyone who wants all voices to be heard to vote for this amendment which is so very much in the tradition of good government in this country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. And I rise to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from

Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for their cooperation on the issue of the Delaware River deepening. We have many friendships in our Delaware River region. We have a friendly disagreement about what to do with this project. I believe this project is the wrong thing to do for the taxpayers. The GAO has told us that for every dollar that we invest as federal taxpayers, we would only get back 43 cents. I think the project is wrong for the environment.

It will stir up potentially toxic substances on the bottom of the river and create an enormous disposal problem, and I think it is unfair the way the dredge spoils are going to be disposed.

The committee has heard our concerns and placed into this bill a very minor amount of funds that permits us in the region to work out our differences. I continue to strongly oppose the project and want to thank the committee for its assistance in this matter. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been a strong and active voice against this project. He has stood firmly for the concerns of his constituents so they are not dumped on. He has been a very worthy ally, and I want the Record to reflect that I am very pleased with his assistance and very grateful for his assistance in this matter.

I believe this is a wrongful use of federal taxpayers' funds. I appreciate the fact there was a need to put a very small amount in the bill to keep the discussion going, but I want to thank the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for putting this very important motion forward.

The Republicans cannot win this argument in the world of reality, so they have created a world of illusion that they are speaking to today.

One of their illusions is that this is a tax increase bill. If you make less than $1 million a year of taxable income, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with you. The second illusion is that this bill will have a devastating and crushing effect on those who do file more than $1 million a year of adjusted gross income.

Well, first of all, we have heard the statistic over and over and over again about small businesses. Fewer than 4 percent of the small businesses in this

country file more than $1 million a year of adjusted gross income. And for those that do, under this proposal, their taxes would be $24,000 a year lower than they were 3 years ago. This makes their tax cut smaller than it was; their taxes would still be $24,000 a year lower than they were 3 years ago.

And the third illusion is that we are disrupting this masterful economic strategy that is bringing this boon to our country.

Well, this masterful economic strategy has lost 1.9 million more jobs than it has created. The rate for people making more than $1 million a year that is in this bill is the strategy that resulted in 23 million more jobs being created than were lost. So much for the world of illusion.

In the world of reality, the Republicans cannot explain this vote, if they vote no, because when they go to the VFW hall and they are asked by the members of the VFW why they are not doing something about reducing the waiting lines at the VA health clinics, they will not be able to explain why they did not vote for more money for VA health care. When they sit down with the members of the Board of Education in their towns and the board members say, why do you not fully fund special education, and they all sign letters that say they support that and they introduce bills that say they support that, they will not be able to explain why they did not vote for a $1 billion-plus increase in special education that would lower property taxes and go right to the local schools.

When they visit with the environmental community in their hometowns, and they hear, why can you not do more to clean up the Superfund sites that are in our area, and why can you not do more to bring environmental progress to our area, they will not be able to explain why they voted against a bill that significantly increases investments in environmental protection.

This bill is filled with all of the promises that everyone here makes: more veterans' health care, more money for education. When they visit the fire company and police department in their hometown and they are asked why those guys and women still do not have biochem suits and training to deal with the terrorist attack, they will not be able to explain why they voted against this bill, which adds money for those firefighters and first responders.

So because they will not be able to explain this vote at the fire station or the Board of Education or the VFW hall or the local Sierra Club, they have created a world of illusion: It is a tax increase. No, it is not. It will crush small businesses. No, it will not. It will interfere with the masterful management of the U.S. economy by this administration, which has lost nearly 2 million more jobs than it has created.

Mr. Speaker, if the argument against this bill is that it disrupts the Bush economic policy, I say that is the finest argument I could hear to vote yes on this bill. If there ever was a policy that needed disruption, this is the one.

Vote yes for the things that you say that you support when you are back home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner); the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle); the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our ranking member; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member of the subcommittee, for their outstanding work that will benefit my constituents and children throughout the country.

I thank the gentleman for his cooperation and comity, and for working with us on this.

I particularly want to thank the committee for incorporating three issues in this bill that I was involved in working on with members on both sides.

The first is a provision that will permit school districts to more easily automatically enroll children in the child nutrition programs if they are eligible for some other assistance program that has similar or the same eligibility requirements. There are a lot of children who do not get enrolled because their moms and dads do not send the forms back or because there is some kinds of bureaucratic problem. This will help many, many children, and it is greatly appreciated.

Secondly, I appreciate the committee's efforts to be sure that children who attend private for-profit pre-kindergarten programs are given full and equal opportunity to participate in this program.

Third, I salute the committee leadership for their very artful and fair compromise on the issue of soy milk, which is important medically and culturally for many children and many families. This will permit parents who wish to make the choice of soy milk to make that choice.

I also want to commend the staff on both sides of the aisle for their outstanding participation and help in this. I am proud to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from California. One of the most important functions of any sovereign nation is determining who can enter the country and who cannot.

In our country we balance many important values in making this decision. We have always been an open society that has been enriched by new citizens, by visitors and by those who come here to contribute to the great dynamism of the American economy.

At the same time, we cannot be a country that has a welcome mat out

for everyone in the world because it would suffocate the very dynamism of that economy. There obviously are security concerns. Most people in the world are very welcome in America because they are people who love peace and contribute. There are a few who are most definitely not welcome in America because they are security risks.

Just as our country has to sort this problem out every day, on individual cases this problem must be sorted out every day. The people who begin the process of sorting this balance out are immigration information officers. I can think of no more public function, no more core public function than exercising the constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders, and the idea that this function would be delegated to someone who works for a for-profit firm strikes me as well beyond the realm of reason.

When someone presents his or her papers to begin the process of getting into the country, all kinds of questions have to be asked. Are the papers true or fraudulent? This is what these officers deal with every day. Are the intentions of the person trying to enter the country munificent or harmful? This is a judgment that these officers have to make every day.

The information people present to gain access to the country is very often private and important only to them, and respecting the privacy of the person who tries to get into the country is an important value that has to be protected every day.

If questions arise about the veracity of someone's application, the officer needs to go to law enforcement or to intelligence agencies to figure out whether the person is whom he or she says they are. Are these functions we want performed by someone who is hired out?

Can we exercise the degree of accountability for control of our borders that we need to exercise if the people who are exercising these functions are here this year but may not be here next year when a new contract is let? Can we be sure that the training that is necessary to balance these many competing concerns is going to be adequately given to officers who are not sworn employees of the United States? I do not think so.

I understand the debate on privatization is over whether something is a core government function or not. I can scarcely think of a function that is more an example of a core governmental function than controlling access to our borders. Frankly, if controlling access to our borders is not a core governmental function, then running the Navy is not a core governmental function or conducting foreign intelligence is not a core governmental function or perhaps we should privatize diplomats, and instead of having ambassadors appointed by the President we should hire diplomatic arbitration services because it seems to me to be equally the case that it is a core governmental function.

One could argue all one wants about efficiency, but there is a higher value here than efficiency, and that value is accountability in the discharge of our constitutional function in controlling our borders. This is not an area where the managers of the Department should have discretion because this is a clear case.

The constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders is a pure public function, and it should be carried out by sworn employees who are men and women who are responsible to the public voters, responsible to this Congress and responsible for the future discharge of their responsibilities.

So I thank my friend from California for offering her amendment. I think it is an excellent idea. I would urge Members from both sides to enthusiastically support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to personally thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for their leadership and hard work on this. I know that the chairman has many competing priorities, and I know that he has done a masterful job in accommodating this very important priority, and I personally thank him for that. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my friend and neighbor, without whom none of this would have happened, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his skillful legislative work in bringing all this together and making this happen, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his energy on this issue at all times. I am honored to be part of it.

Let me just make two brief comments. Two things we can be sure of: The first is when the next terrorist attack hits the United States the people who will benefit from this program will be the first ones to show up. They will be the first ones there, and because they are given these additional resources I am confident they will do an even better job than they already do.

The second thing we can be sure of is that we will get every nickel's worth of value out of this $50 million. The paid departments, fully paid departments, are used to stretching every dime, and they will get maximum personal value out of this, and the largely volunteer departments, any small bit of money for people that make money by washing cars and running beef and beers, any bit of money is going to help them expand their ability to protect the community. So I am very grateful to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I ask enthusiastically support the amendment. I ask for a large bipartisan vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). For the record, although I am proud to be a New Jerseyan, I would point out my district is about 80 miles away from New York City. It is really not part of the New York City metropolitan region; but I do not think that is the issue here, because this amendment is not about the New York City metropolitan region or Chicago or Seattle or Los Angeles. It is about the national interest.

It is indisputably true that there is not a village or a hamlet or a town in America that is immune from a terrorist attack. It is indisputably true that the terrorists may choose to strike a rather small, obscure place simply to prove a point, that they can, and to spread the fear that is there.

To address that problem, it is important to have some resources for every part of the country; and the chairman has put together a bill which very wisely does that. And I commend him for it, and I support him for it. But we cannot really legislate based on ``what if.'' We have to legislate based on ``what is.'' And the public record of the intelligence reports, not disclosing anything that is not on that public record, clearly indicates, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) said, a pattern by the Islamic racialists to focus their efforts on targets that would be known by a person who is on the street in Beirut because they want to make a point that they are striking the infidels. So they strike a symbol so that when it appears on international television, their horror and twisted victory can be understood by the audience to which they are playing.

It is not a coincidence that on September 11 the symbols that were struck and the symbols that were targeted would be symbols that would be known throughout the so-called Arab street. That was the purpose.

The public record of intelligence clearly can lead us to the conclusion that high-visibility, well-perceived targets are the most likely places for this kind of terror to strike. It is the national interest to prioritize the spending of money in these ways, not a parochial interest for people from large cities or from particular large cities.

Very often we have supplemental appropriations bills come to the floor of this House, and they deal with wild fires in California, or they deal with floods in the rural Midwest, or they deal with natural catastrophes that happen throughout the country. It is our tradition and it is to our honor that we stand up and nearly to a man or to a woman vote to support that aid because our neighbors need it, and they need it more than we do.

I have rarely in my time here heard a Member say that they will not support flood relief aid or hurricane relief aid for part of the country because that part of the country is getting too much. Instead, there is an acknowledgment that when one of our areas has a time of greater need, each of us rises to the occasion and vindicates the national interest in that way.

The bill that is before us does not ignore the needs of rural America. It does not ignore the needs of the less populated areas of the country. I do believe that the decision the bill makes disproportionately funds those needs, however. And I do think the right allocation is to reflect the best judgment of the intelligence community and to adopt the amendment that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has put forth.

The fundamental answer, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), is that we have not given enough resources for this problem overall. But we can not legislate based on what if. We have to legislate based on what is. And what is is the credible judgment of the intelligence community that high-population, high-target areas are the most vulnerable and most likely places for us to be assaulted. We should adopt the Sweeney amendment and reflect that good judgement.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, amendment and urge its adoption. As is typical of a person who is a fine legislative craftsperson, this amendment fits the rules and is well-crafted to pass. I wish, and I think I share this wish with the gentlewoman from New York, that we could do even more; and I know she would do much more if that were a viable possibility.

I support this amendment because I like to think of myself as being a fiscal conservative; and for those of us who believe that we should be careful stewards of the taxpayers' dollar, this amendment meets that test in two very important ways.

First of all, arts organizations and humanities organizations are among the most efficient organizations I have ever seen. These are organizations for whom $5,000 or $10,000 can make the difference between a viable, vibrant program and no program at all. In an institution where billions of dollars are routinely cut, spent or otherwise allocated, these arts organizations stand in stark contrast because they are the kinds of institutions where a very small amount of money can make a very big difference.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that we all have such organizations in our districts. I just heard my friend from North Carolina talk about some organizations in his. These are organizations that piece together volunteer in-kind contributions for men and women who paint sets and sell tickets and make costumes. They knit together that effort with a few dollars from a local bank or a charitable foundation with a small amount of support from the local, county, or State cultural and heritage commission, with private donations from individuals and families in the community. When they are $5,000 away from getting something done, very often it is this grant from this program that helps get that something done.

So in terms of stretching the taxpayers' dollar, it is the most productive use. The recipients of these grants across the country are the experts at that, and they deserve this help.

Second, as my friend from New York pointed out so well a few minutes ago, these expenditures are an investment in economic growth. There are so many cities and communities in our country, many of them in my State of New Jersey, that are focusing their downtown revitalization projects on the arts; that are focusing their job creation efforts on bringing people into shopping districts and business communities because there is a cultural festival, because there is a concert, because there is a new gallery opening; that art patrons bring traffic. They buy products; they buy goods and services. They eat at the restaurants. They create a proliferation of economic activity.

We spend a lot of the people's money here. Some of it I do not think we spend as well as we should, but this is an entirely well-thought-out expenditure of the people's money.

The final point I would make is that I applaud this amendment's support for the teaching and learning of history. It is one of the things that worries me about the future of our country, that so many of our citizens are not engaged in the study of our history, not engaged in an understanding of what our history means. This Republic is a magnificent experiment. It is a unique experiment in the history of mankind; and to truly appreciate the gift that we have been given in this Republic requires an understanding of the history that yielded this Republic.

If one person is compelled to read about the Articles of Confederation or is compelled to read the great debates that gave rise to the Constitution of this country, if one person is made to think about how ancient principles of liberty and democracy apply in very turbulent modern times, then I think we have accomplished having something very important. A lot more than one person, many more than one person is going to have that opportunity as a result of this amendment.

So I thank its author. I thank those on the other side of the aisle who stepped forward to support it, and I urge an affirmative vote in favor of the amendment.

Modification to Amendments Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), and coauthor for yielding me this time; and I urge a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know that it is a hotly debated topic as to whether there should be logging in this forest, and irrespective of how someone feels about this question, I think they should vote in favor of this amendment. If they feel, as I do, that logging is inappropriate in Tongass, then this amendment stops building the roads that will let people exploit that logging and preserves this priceless natural asset.

But I know that there are many who believe that logging is appropriate in the Tongass forest; and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say even if they think it is appropriate, they should vote for this amendment, and they should vote for this amendment on several important fiscal grounds.

The first fiscal ground is this is one of the worst investments the United States taxpayers have ever been asked to make. In fiscal year 2002, which is the last year for which there is evidence here, the American taxpayers put up $36 million to build these roads, and our revenue, our return on our investment, was slightly over $1 million. For every $36 we put up, we got $1 back.

The second point that I would make, you say, well, look, we still need to get this logging done. The fact of the matter is there are miles and miles of roads already built in the Tongass National Forest that do give access to logging. So if we want to see the forest logged, the roads are already there that would permit the forest to be logged. We do not need to build new ones. And if we think that we should be logging in the Tongass National Forest and that roads that will give access to the logging are not accessible, there is a reason. That is because there is a $900 million backlog in road maintenance for roads that are already there to get access to the logging.

So colleagues, I want you to think about this. If you believe, as I do not, that logging the resources, exploiting the resources of this natural forest is the right thing to do and you need road access to get there, you are throwing good money after bad. If we truly believe that the right thing to do is to get access to these forests, we will deal with the $900 million backlog to the existing roads. We would not put more money into building new roads.

This amendment is favored by hunters and sportsmen who want to preserve the pristine nature of this place where they can pursue their sport. It is favored by taxpayers and budget groups across the country who well understand that at a time when our country is borrowing $30 for every $100 that we spend, offering corporate welfare to the lumber industries is the wrong way to go; and it is favored by those who just favor common sense, who understand that when the taxpayers are asked to put up a $36 investment, they should not get a $1 return. That is the simple mathematics of this amendment.

Now, for those who are moved by the environmental arguments, as I am, this is a foolish misuse of our public resources. This is America's rainforest. It is a very precious and special place, and for us to exploit those resources with these roads is just a horrible idea.

But I will submit, in closing, before I yield back to my coauthor, that the issue here really is not whether we favor exploitation of these forests for logging or not. We can have that debate some other time. The issue here is whether we favor throwing good money after bad, whether we favor building more roads when the roads we already have need repair. It is whether we favor putting $36 into an investment that will get us $1 back in return. If you are an environmentalist, you should support this amendment, as the environmental groups do. If you are a taxpayer for common sense, you should support this amendment. If you are a sportsman or a hunter, you should support this amendment.

Even if you favor the exploitation of these logging resources, you should favor this amendment because the most rational way to pursue the exploitation of those logging resources is to fix the roads that are already there, not put more money into the building and acquisition of new roads.

I would urge my Republican and Democratic friends to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I thank my friend from Ohio for being the principal author.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, would the chairman offer the gentleman more time to answer a question?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given another 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm that, that each one of these examples the chairman of the authorization committee used is not covered by the amendment. The fact of the matter is each one of those things that is listed is not barred by this amendment. What is barred by this amendment is to waste the taxpayers' money. People should vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, with this month being Autism Awareness Month, I ask that you join me in recognizing the efforts of Andrew D'Amico and his parents, Mr. Frank D'Amico and Mrs. Nancy D'Amico in supporting this cause. With autism occurring in 1 in every 250 births nationwide, more scientific research in regard to causes and treatments would prove to be beneficial. The D'Amicos participate in the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), an organization that as its name suggests funds and promotes scientific research to determine both the biological origin and possible cure for this condition. In 1994, NAAR became the first association in the United States to uphold a mission dedicated to research concerning autism. More recently, on April 1st of last year, the D'Amicos along with other representatives of NAAR lobbied on NAAR's Hill Day for increases in the NIH budget specifically geared towards researching this condition.

In addition to boosting financial resources for research, NAAR builds a supportive community of friends and family connected to autism. This group's major fundraiser, Walk F.A.R. for NAAR, takes care of both bases by raising funds and by connecting many individuals through one powerful goal of spreading awareness and deepening knowledge. NAAR hosts this special 4-mile long walk in numerous locations throughout the Nation. Since May 2000, 150,000 walkers have together raised over $15 million. The dedication and care of those involved in the walk survive any obstacle, as is evident in last year's Delaware Valley Walk. Rain drenched this site, but 2,000 supporters completed every bit of the 4 miles and collected $204,000. The commitment of NAAR's members simply shines. Walkers can take part in this event separately or within a team. Andrew and his parents formed Team Andrew, a team that at fifty walkers strong donated $10,000 alone last year at the previously mentioned walk. Andrew along with the rest of his team intends to continue their strong showing and partake in the 2004 Delaware Valley Walk on June 12th, exactly two months before his 18th birthday.

Aside from his activities with NAAR, Andrew devotes himself to high achievement within his high school and surrounding communities. Currently a junior at West Deptford High School, he has earned upstanding academic marks and the esteem of the faculty. Such accomplishment secured for Andrew the Principal's Award for the second marking period of the current school year and an invitation to apply for membership to the West Deptford Chapter of the National Honor Society. Acceptance into this society revolves around scholarship, service, character, and leadership. Further solidifying his involvement within West Deptford High School, Andrew serves through the Key Club and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). Rather than taking a back seat, Andrew actively and admirably becomes involved.

Andrew combines his interest in service and ability to lead by volunteering at the Gloucester County Camp that focuses on Asperberger Syndrome. Those exhibiting symptoms of this condition show signs of deficient socialization and difficulty in coping with changes in routine. This 4-week program aims to comfortably increase social interaction amongst its participants. Andrew, a two-year veteran, decided to take another step up and reach out to those willing to put out a hand. The construction of this tight network offers a foundation for the individuals of the camp to gain support from. Mr. D'Amico described his son's incredible ripple effects when he commented, ``Andrew has made our family stronger and each of us a stronger person. We were all blessed on the day he was born.'' Andrew chooses not to view his state as a heavy weight or crutch. He instead aspires to not only take care of himself and his responsibilities but to also touch and invigorate those around him. For a myriad of reasons, Andrew D'Amico unquestionably deserves acknowledgment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Centennial Celebration of the Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey. Paulsboro has a long and colorful history, as well as a promising future of which its citizens should be quite proud.

The town of Paulsboro lies next to the Delaware River across the border from--Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Though the Borough was officially established in 1904, the history of the region dates back many more years. Settlers first came to the Delaware River area in 1623 and, over time, Paulsboro developed into a small farming community. On March 2, 1904, Paulsboro joined with a nearby town by the name of Billingsport, and the two were together incorporated as the Borough of Paulsboro.

William Penn once said that the land that Paulsboro now sits on would never become a great industrial center because it was an island with a swamp on one side and a creek on the other. However, just before World War I, Paulsboro was selected as the location for an oil refinery. The Paulsboro Plant, which began in 1917, was designed to manufacture lubricating oil, and began the transformation of Paulsboro from a residential town into an industrial town. While the plant, which still exists today as an ExxonMobil research laboratory, is actually located in neighboring Gibbstown, it is still referred to as the Paulsboro Plant, and many of its loyal employees are residents of Paulsboro.

With a keen eye on the future, the Borough of Paulsboro is now considering a proposal for the creation of a deep-water port on the Delaware River. County officials predict that such a port could create 2,300 jobs, and generate $100 million each year in revenues and taxes, becoming a vital component of the community's future. From its humble beginnings at the turn of the century, Paulsboro is set once again to reinvigorate and diversify our regional economy and community.

The residents of Paulsboro should be proud that their community has prospered for 100 years, an accomplishment in and of itself. The Paulsboro area has made significant cultural and economic contributions to our country throughout its history, and I am certain that there is a bright future ahead for the Borough and its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the citizens of Paulsboro, New Jersey as they celebrate 100 years of pride and accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise before you today to congratulate the members of the Deptford Township School District Naval Junior ROTC for their commitment to citizenship, leadership, and community. On June 8, 2004, the Deptford Naval Junior ROTC will hold a ceremony to honor these dedicated cadets, and several exemplary individuals will be receiving awards of distinction. I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the following individuals who will be recognized at Tuesday's award ceremony: Johnathan Rivera and John Porteous will receive the Military Order of the World Wars Leadership Award, which is awarded to the individuals who best exemplify the spirit of ROTC leadership; Cadet Petty Officer Third Class Christine D'Ottaviano will receive the Military Order of the World Wars Award, which is awarded to the individual who has demonstrated outstanding accomplishment and service to the ROTC Unit; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Andrew Horvat will receive the Stephen Decatur Jr. Award, awarded to an outstanding junior cadet; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Sherri Baskerville and Adam Kucera will receive the Military Officers Association of America Award, which is awarded to the individuals who have demonstrated exceptional potential for military leadership; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Jacob Callahan will receive the National Sojourners Award, which is awarded to the most outstanding cadet with patriotism; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Adam Kalb will receive the Order of Daedalians Award, which is awarded to the individual who has demonstrated scholastic and leadership excellence with a desire to pursue a military career; and Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Travis Hanson will receive the American Veterans (AMVETS) JROTC Award, which is awarded to an individual with a positive attitude, outstanding personal appearance, dependability, and sound judgment.

The Junior ROTC program serves our great nation by training the future leadership of our armed forces and fostering the development of our youth into contributing and responsible members of society. All of the cadets of the Deptford Township School District Naval Junior ROTC are to be commended for their commitment and outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the bill.

I suppose if you are one of the 8 million unemployed Americans listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, you wonder what this bill would mean to you. First, if you live in one of the many, many States that would not be part of this pilot program, it means nothing. Second, if you are in one of the States or counties that has the pilot program, you keep hearing about this $3,000, there is no $3,000. This bill was not funded in the President's budget.

If money would be scraped together for it, it would come out of something

else that helps unemployed people. It is up to $3,000. So someone listening to this, Mr. Speaker, should not assume that he or she is going to get a $3,000 voucher. But let us assume that you live in one of the pilot counties and the money is there to some extent. What does this mean? It means you are unemployed and you get a choice. You can either take all the services that the law presently provides like job training, like counseling, like transportation, like child care; or you can give up your right to receive those services for a year and take this check of up to $3,000 instead.

Now, if you have looked at the price of sending children to child care, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at tuition at a career college or a community college, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at the things that people need to do to get to work or find work, it does not go very far at all. So the premise of the bill seems to be that people are not taking jobs because it is better to stay on unemployment than it is to go get a job. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that anybody who thinks that has probably never been on unemployment.

The idea here is not that the $3,000 is going to be an incentive for people to go get a job. People are not taking jobs because the economy is not creating the jobs. For every three people looking for work in America today, there is one job. That is the problem that we ought to fix. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those without a job. We ought to pass the transportation bill so that we put 300,000 Americans to work. We ought to adopt the Ryan proposal from yesterday that would create 100,000 new jobs for first responders to deal with our homeland security problems. That is the way to fix this problem. Not this bill.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.

Over the last several years, we have lost 2 million jobs in the country. Over the last several weeks, we have heard that there are new and grave terrorist threats to our trains and a number of individuals are free in the country threatening to blow up buildings and do other acts of terror.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent idea that addresses each of those two problems. His idea is that we authorize enough money so that we could train and recruit and hire 100,000 first responders to be deployed in our cities and our States and our communities across the country. We would be stronger at home against the terrorist threat, and we would put 100,000 people to work in the process in skilled jobs with good benefits.

Now, I think this is an excellent idea. But what is wrong about what the House is doing today is we are not even going to get to debate this idea or discuss it or vote on it. The majority has put forth a plan that they say will help the unemployed. I emphatically disagree that it will, but it is their right to bring that plan forward. It should be our right as the minority to bring our plan forward.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent plan. If you vote against the previous question, you will give us the chance to debate and vote on the very excellent plan offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the centenary of Haddon Heights, New Jersey. My family and I are privileged to live in Haddon Heights, a small town located in southern New Jersey just outside Camden and 7 short miles from downtown Philadelphia. While its proximity to one of the largest and most vibrant metropolitan centers in the country makes Haddon Heights a culturally diverse and enriched community, the town is also a world removed from the bustle of the city, reflecting values and a sense of community characteristic of small towns far removed from our urban centers.

Haddon Heights was first settled in 1699 when John Hinchman built a one-room brick house. However, the borough was developed primarily as farmland, divided between crops and orchards for nearly 200 years. The borough was named Haddon Heights because of its proximity to Haddonfield and its high elevation.

During the late 1890s, the town's first homes, church, rail station, and a general store were constructed, and by 1904, Haddon Heights had become large enough to incorporate as a borough. The town's residents elected Benjamin A. Lippincott as the town's first mayor.

Viewed as a resort town because of a direct rail connection to Philadelphia, its proximity to the lake, and the warmth and friendliness of its small town atmosphere, the population of Haddon Heights swelled during the summer months as vacationers escaped the cities. The rail station served as the hub of the town, and a small downtown began to emerge surrounding the railroad that brought the town's visitors.

Rail passenger service ended in 1965, but Haddon Heights retains to this day a character reflective of its roots as a rail town at the turn of the 20th century. Haddon Heights has a proud, rich heritage, which we continue to embrace and celebrate as we look to our shared future. I feel privileged to be a part of the Haddon Heights community, and I can think of no better place today, to raise a family or to be a child growing up. So in celebration of the past 100 years, and in anticipation of the many great things to come from our town in the next 100 years, please join me in honoring Haddon Heights, New Jersey, on the celebration of its centenary.