Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in the family of public servants, our military, and especially their families, deserve special attention, especially during this government shutdown.

We have spoken with pride many times about our Active Duty soldiers, sailors, marines, Coast Guard, airmen and airwomen, many deployed in Afghanistan and other challenging areas around the globe.

I need not remind my colleagues that the men and women of the National Guard are just as vital to the performance of our military. They train, deploy, and they fight alongside their Active Duty brethren. Many of these men and women have completed multiple overseas deployments in some of these same dangerous areas. They guard us here at home and meet the challenges of manmade and natural disasters--civil emergencies like Hurricane Sandy last year in New Jersey or the flooding in Colorado. Last year, the National Guard alone responded to more than 100 natural disaster missions.

Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects a drafting error in the Pay Our Military Act, signed into law last Monday. It is intended to appropriate funds so that all of our servicemembers--Active Duty, Guard and Reserve--get paid. It deserves our bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the continuing resolution. I do so with no small amount of frustration, since Ranking Member Kaptur and I worked hard on our Energy and Water bill, putting months of work into it. It passed the House and now is held up.

Ours was a tough, but a balanced, bill. We made some difficult choices to get under the $960 billion cap set by this House, while still funding our Nation's critical priorities, strong national defense, the work of the Army Corps of Engineers, and, yes, the work of the Department of Energy. And all that work will be thrown away unless we deal with sequestration and get back to what we call regular order.

Coming up with an approach to manage, or perhaps best, eliminate sequestration, is going to take some time. As those decisions are being made, our Nation must be kept open for business, and the government must provide critical services.

If the government shuts down, many of those services will not be funded. Military personnel will not be paid, and their families will suffer.

This would be an unpardonable breach of trust to our men and women in uniform.

Under the jurisdiction of our committee, the Energy and Water bill, many Army Corps of Engineers activities would quickly grind to a halt. That includes the dredging of waterways critical to American jobs and businesses and work on flood control structures such as levees.

At our national laboratories, critical and time-sensitive work to maintain the reliability of our nuclear weapons would also slow down. That would be unconscionable. Our work overseas to ensure that nuclear weapons materials are kept out of the hands of those who would do our country harm would also be curtailed.

The continuing resolution before us is a limited, temporary measure which includes no objectionable provisions and ensures the government keeps its obligations to the American people. It deserves passage so the Senate can quickly begin its consideration of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ARC of Essex County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 65th Anniversary.

When a group of dedicated parents, religious leaders and volunteers gathered in September of 1948 to create services for individuals with developmental disabilities, they not only created a service that would benefit a community, but they formed a service that would change the lives of people development intellectual disabilities forever. With the efforts from these amazing individuals, came a place where people of all ages can grow comfortably and accomplish goals that would be very hard to attain otherwise.

Today, the ARC of Essex County is a private, non-profit agency serving people who live in and around the region and it is one of the pre-eminent organizations of its kind in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. The ARC provides resources to over 1,300 individuals and their families with both traditional and self-directed options.

Offering a large number of programs, family resources and education outlets, the ARC is happy to individually tailor fit their programs to address the unique needs of each person and family. The group also allows for more traditional services such as Adult Day Care Service and community service programs. Each of these programs has proven to be a valuable asset to everyone involved with the ARC.

The dedication of the volunteers of the ARC is to be commended as well. Their work allows the important programs and advocacy of the ARC to continue and be extraordinarily successful. These passionate volunteers are consistently providing services and assistance to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Much of the success of the ARC of Essex County may be seen through its accomplishments. Their educators, volunteers and staff have created opportunities for people with developmental disabled people that would have been unthinkable 65 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ARC of Essex County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 65th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey, serving five counties of northwest New Jersey, which is celebrating its 10th Anniversary.

As a non-profit law firm, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey seeks to provide free legal assistance on matters affecting essential needs of low-income and other vulnerable people in our community. In the past ten years, Legal Services of New Jersey has provided services for 42,873 low-income constituents in the area. Their services seek to help individuals maintain safe and affordable housing, gain suitable incomes, access quality health care and secure family stability. The organization has attorneys and administrators working in Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex and Warren counties.

Legal Services of Northwest Jersey is dedicated to the cause of equal justice and each year prioritizes their work and mission to serve different needs of the low-income community. Recently, the organization has focused on disaster legal assistance, access to health care and assistance for those affected by HIV/AIDS. In these areas, the organization has helped those affected by Superstorm Sandy as well as those seeking legal advice on accessing benefits of the Affordable Care Act and Medicare/Medicaid. In order to provide these services, as a public-private partnership, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey is funded by federal, state and county governments. Most notably, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Violence Against Women, the Merck Foundation and the County Bar Associations provide support for the organization. In addition, the organization received a $20,000 grant from the State of New Jersey in October 2012, specifically to provide legal access to those constituents affected by HIV/AIDS.

To highlight one of their own, William F. Matrician, Esq., a veteran, has served as an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Morris County since 1971. He was instrumental in helping the organization grow into the well-recognized and respected non-profit law firm that it is today. His colleague, Joel A. Murphy, Esq., describes Bill as ``a great attorney with a very big heart''. Bill's character and dedicated service to those less-fortunate in his community is indicative of all those who devote their work and time to the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey's mission.

In recent news, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey has made available its MENTOR (Meeting Education Needs Through Representation) program to low-income constituents. The Daily Record, highlighted and explained the mission of the program that seeks to meet the education needs of its client families through representation over a broad range of educational areas, including special education, school attendance and registration, homelessness, educational access and school disciplinary proceedings. Through the MENTOR and similar programs, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey provides constituents with help in obtaining their basic rights as citizens, in this case, access to a quality education.

Recently, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey has struggled to provide the civil legal services needed by their constituents due to fewer resources. Despite such obstacles, the organization has continued to provide the most comprehensive and helpful legal advice it can to low-income constituents of northwest New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey as they celebrate their 10th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the 12th anniversary of the attack on America of September 11, 2001.

In lieu of formal remarks, I would like to read ``The Names,'' a poem written by then-poet laureate Billy Collins, which was read before a joint session of Congress in lower Manhattan just after the attacks.

``The Names,'' by Billy Collins:

Yesterday, I lay awake in the palm of the night.

A soft rain stole in, unhelped by any breeze,

And when I saw the silver glaze on the windows,

I started with A, with Ackerman, as it happened,

Then Baxter and Calabro,

Davis and Eberling, names falling into place

As droplets fell through the dark.

Names printed on the ceiling of the night.

Names slipping around a watery bend.

Twenty-six willows on the banks of a stream.

In the morning, I walked out barefoot

Among thousands of flowers

Heavy with dew like the eyes of tears,

And each had a name--

Fiori inscribed on a yellow petal

Then Gonzalez and Han, Ishikawa and Jenkins.

Names written in the air

And stitched into the cloth of the day.

A name under a photograph taped to a mailbox.

Monogram on a torn shirt,

I see you spelled out on storefront windows

And on the bright unfurled awnings of this city.

I say the syllables as I turn a corner--

Kelly and Lee,

Medina, Nardella, and O'Connor.

When I peer into the woods,

I see a thick tangle where letters are hidden

As in a puzzle concocted for children.

Parker and Quigley in the twigs of an ash,

Rizzo, Schubert, Torres, and Upton,

Secrets in the boughs of an ancient maple.

Names written in the pale sky.

Names rising in the updraft amid buildings.

Names silent in stone

Or cried out behind a door.

Names blown over the earth and out to sea.

In the evening--weakening light, the last swallows.

A boy on a lake lift his oars.

A woman by a window puts a match to a candle,

And the names are outlined on the rose clouds--

Vanacore and Wallace.

(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)

Then Young and Ziminsky, the final jolt

of Z.

Names etched on the head of a pin.

One name spanning a bridge, another undergoing a tunnel.

A blue name needled into the skin.

Names of citizens, workers, mothers and fathers,

The bright-eyed daughter, the quick son.

Alphabet of names in a green field.

Names in the small tracks of birds.

Names lifted from a hat

Or balanced on the tip of the tongue.

Names wheeled into the dim warehouse of memory.

So many names, there is barely room on the walls of the

heart.

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

Certainly I appreciate the gentleman's passion on this issue and agree that is an important issue that needs to be addressed. As he is aware, Mr. Chairman, the Department estimates it will take multiple years and a significant investment to properly address these contaminated sites in Puerto Rico.

We look forward to working with the gentleman. We understand that he may be considering withdrawing his amendment so we can continue to work with him to address this problem, which significantly has impacted the Commonwealth.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Reclaiming my time, it was my understanding with

Mr. Young that the gentleman would consider withdrawing the amendment if we gave a commitment to continue to work with him on this very important issue, which he has dedicated so much time and effort to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective

John M. Gibson

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We support your amendment. As you said, it is similar to what the bill carried last year and what was a provision in the armed services bill, so we are supportive of it. We're obviously mindful and respectful of the ranking member's position, but the majority of Congress felt the way you and I do and the committee did as well.

Madam Chair, it is in our interest that we have a strong, stable, moderate, and truly democratic Egypt. It's in the best interests of both our countries. We've had a 30-year relationship, and those interests would be damaged if we decide to in any way disengage from Egypt and its people in their quest for a true democracy or reduce current levels of support for the Egyptian military. This is a country of 80 million

people, a cornerstone of peace in the Middle East, despite its recent troubles, and we need to make sure that we keep the Egyptians close to us as a strong ally and work with their military operations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and rise in support of his rule and the underlying Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.

First of all, I congratulate my chairman, Mr. Rogers, and also Defense chairman, Mr. Young, as well as Mr. Visclosky and Mrs. Lowey, for their hard work and leadership getting this legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, as we are all keenly aware, the budget of the Department of Defense is under severe stress. We are already seeing the effects of the President's budget cuts and the sequester on military readiness.

To fight effectively, our Armed Forces must be staffed, equipped, and trained to operate under dangerous, complex, and uncertain conditions, often with little or no warning. They require the right personnel using the right equipment and the right training.

But if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the future is highly unpredictable. Unanticipated events often catch us by surprise. We constantly ask our military to be prepared for any contingency. Yet today we have burdened them with new levels of budgetary uncertainty hampering modernization, planning, and training.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform need this Defense appropriations process to move forward. We should not force them to contemplate another inefficient continuing resolution on top of additional crippling sequester cuts. That is what will happen if this House cannot find a way to pass this important legislation: more delay, more uncertainty, diminished readiness, more risk for the men and women we ask to go into harm's way.

Is this a perfect rule, this structured rule? Absolutely not. The committee always prefers open rules and regular order.

At the same time, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill so that we can work with the Senate to fulfill our most basic mission under the constitutional duty--to provide for the common defense.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me the time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of our Defense appropriations bill. Under Chairman Young's leadership and collaboration and strong support from Mr. Visclosky, our committee held a lengthy series of hearings examining varied topics: our operations in Afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific, the Army and Air Force's need for modernization, Navy shipbuilding, marine end strength, military health care, acquisition reform, sexual assaults, among other important issues, and, of course, the impact of the sequester, the negative impact.

Most of our hearings related to reducing risk in the defense budget and the new strategic guidance from the Department of Defense-- protecting our gains as well as preparing for current and future threats--China's growing military capability; continued uncertainty in North Korea and that peninsula; the destabilizing civil war in Syria; Iran's race to develop a nuclear weapons capability and their threat to close the Straits of Hormuz, among others.

Our goal throughout this bill is to provide the resources to support our warfighters now and in the future, whenever the next crisis arises.

Madam Chairman, our subcommittee, like other Appropriations subcommittees, clearly recognizes the Nation's debt and deficit and found areas and programs where reductions are possible without adversely impacting our Armed Forces and our modernization efforts. Frankly, it is important that we find savings without harming readiness or increasing the risks incurred by our warfighters.

Under Chairman Young's leadership, our committee has had a close examination of military needs and very necessary oversight, so our legislation before us includes funding for critical national security and intelligence needs based on a very strong hearing process. In addition, the bill provides essential funding for health and quality of life programs for all of our men and women in uniform--all volunteers-- and their families. They deserve nothing less.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership, and I strongly support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Is there some movement to withdraw this?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Nugent

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this Israeli cooperative program is an important program, and the Israelis are very good and loyal allies of ours. So we support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time to speak on the amendment.

We're pleased to accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me associate myself with your remarks. Respectfully, we need to assure we have a relationship with the Pakistani Government to make sure that their nuclear weapons capacity is well secured.

And while polls may reflect, as the gentleman says, a very poor view by Americans of Pakistan, we need their support and cooperation not only for the 68,000 troops we have there but the international forces that are working with our troops to help the people of Afghanistan have a better life.

So yes, there may be corruption and there may be ill will among the Pakistani people, in our view, of our involvement over there, but we need to, as we exit Pakistan, to make sure that we get our forces out of there using the road network. Otherwise, we'll have to take a lot of our supplies and men by air, and that would be enormously expensive. We need to keep a good relationship with the Pakistani Government.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, according to the President's own budget request:

The Afghan Infrastructure Fund has been an invaluable

resource in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Initiated

in fiscal year 2011, the AIF funds infrastructure projects in

Afghanistan that are a key feature of the counterinsurgency

strategy and the civil-military strategic framework endorsed

by the commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan to lock in security

gains and maintain stability by providing basic, essential

infrastructure of the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, in other words, these projects that would be eliminated or reduced are vital to protecting our currently deployed troops and civilian employees besides the Afghanis themselves, and that is a worthy investment. We still have 68,000 troops over there, a lot of civilians supporting the effort, contractors even, and a lot of international forces. They deserve this protection. This is a good long-term investment.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, this committee has taken a very hard look at all of our military information operations programs--a very hard look. While the committee reduced or eliminated funding for those we judged not to be appropriate Defense Department activities, this was not one of them.

This is a fully acknowledged program, with each Web site sponsored by a geographic combatant commander. These Web sites provide important news and information about events in their regions and about U.S. activities being conducted in those regions. These Web sites are an important opportunity for the United States Government to inform foreign audiences about U.S. military activities in their regions, including joint military training exercises or, very importantly, about humanitarian assistance.

Too often, we find ourselves frustrated that foreign populations fail to appreciate the support they receive from the United States, particularly from the United States military, or to understand the U.S. position on issues impacting their parts of the world. This is often because people are unaware of our efforts. These Web sites offer the combatant commanders the ability to get the word out, and I believe and we, the committee, believe that that's important. Therefore, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this program also supports our very brave men and women.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, if this Strategic Partnership Agreement involves the protection of our American troops and our allies, then there's good reason to oppose this amendment.

This is an agreement between two sovereign nations. Understandably, the two proponents of this amendment are against our involvement and would like us to leave tomorrow--and indeed we may. But in the process, I would hope that we wouldn't be putting ourselves and our soldiers at risk by an amendment of this type and nature. For those reasons, I oppose it.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

We accept his amendment.

I would note that I know marines never retire.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Budgeting for contingency operations, especially 1\1/2\ years in advance, is very difficult. Goodness knows, the war on terror in Afghanistan and what we did in Iraq, we never knew how long we would be there and how expensive it was.

For example, despite having a higher overseas contingency allocation for fiscal year 2013 of $87 billion, budget execution during fiscal year 2013 has proven that that request was understated by as much as $10 billion. As a result of the extent possible, funds for OCO are being cash-flowed from baseline funds which have already been squeezed due to the sequester, resulting in profound readiness implications. Ships are not sailing, planes are not flying, and civilians are being furloughed. We've heard a lot about that on the floor today.

Additionally, I think all of us know that we are exiting out of Afghanistan. The timetable may be a year or two, or maybe the Commander in Chief will decide to expedite our departure. Transportation costs are spiked as men and equipment are moved and deployed, and God only knows things can happen on the travel route. We've heard a lot about that on the floor, too. Things can happen in Pakistan that might require additional expenses, billions of dollars more if we have to move men and materiel by aircraft. Contractor costs spike for many functions such as dismantling forward operating bases. Some of that's occurring now in disposing of excess materiel or turned over to the private sector to complete. Of course, the reset of equipment carries a very high price tag. There are a lot of reasons that this money is needed.

I strongly oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

MR. MULVANEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Before I close, let me just say for the Record, the $5 billion extra was in the National Defense Reauthorization Act which the House passed I believe in June, and just for the record, funding for the overseas contingency fund in our bill matches the amount recommended by the House Budget Committee, which membership is well known and is present on the floor this evening. So it has a pretty good endorsement, and for this reason I strongly oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Visclosky, for yielding to me. I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment. It seems as though this amendment attempts to reopen issues that were resolved in the 2013 bill, and would prohibit the Air Force from conducting authorized re- basing actions until April 2014.

This amendment appears to be not so great for the National Guard. The National Guard is depending on re-basing actions or remission or backfilling units that otherwise would lose aircraft. I think that needs to happen, and I don't think it necessarily needs to happen after the receipt of this report, which is due some time in the future.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment but understand, because we're good friends, his passion and his very, very strong feelings which he expresses on any number of occasions and has done so eloquently tonight.

Some would argue this isn't true, but I believe Pakistan does remain a key U.S. counterterrorism partner. Their cooperation is essential. As we did during the war in Afghanistan, we're going to have to use air routes over Pakistan. We're going to have to use their maritime capabilities. We're going to have to use the land routes to get our troops and material out; otherwise, we're going to depend on Kyrgyzstan and Russia. It's going to be expensive. It will probably be $20 billion worth of expense to withdraw from Afghanistan if we don't have the cooperation of the Pakistanis.

The other issue is Pakistan is a nuclear power. I think we need to have a close working relationship with them to make sure that those weapons in the future never fall into the wrong hands.

So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I associate myself with them. I strongly oppose this amendment but obviously respect the sponsor for his strong views as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me associate myself with Mr. Visclosky's remarks. I think there's some benefit for us to have a joint military exercise. They may learn something about us; we may learn something about them.

I can assure you the committee isn't in a state of denial. We know the Chinese are very aggressive, setting out a strategy for a blue navy. I think these joint exercises may be extremely beneficial to us in terms of their naval strategy, and to be part of an overall Pacific rim program gives us a pretty good opportunity to take a look at their capabilities.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment.

The Army has made it clear to our committee that it does not want to retain C-23s, the Sherpas, the workhorses, that have been doing some remarkable work for over 30 years, or acquire any replacement platform. In fact, the Army is already taking steps to put the aircraft out of operation while stopping short of full retirement.

At the beginning of fiscal year 2013, the Army National Guard was operating 34 of these Sherpas. As of July, 14 of those had been turned into Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where they are being maintained in semi- flyable storage. That tells you something. The remaining aircraft are scheduled to be turned into Fort Sill by the end of October of this year.

Because this amendment only applies to fiscal year 2014, the aircraft likely will be out of operation before this amendment would take effect. Unfortunately, because the C-23s will already be in storage by the time this amendment takes effect, it is unlikely it will accomplish its intent.

We do not believe that taking funds from other critical readiness programs to apply to the C-23 operations is the best use of the Army's increasingly limited resources. Thus, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 15 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Chatham Borough Police Department, located in Chatham, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary.

On September 2, 1913, an ordinance used to regulate the Chatham Borough Police Department of Morris County was approved. The Department came from humble beginnings, with only one fulltime police officer in its inaugural year and, today, has 18 fulltime officers. Despite the passage of a century, the Police Department's excellent service and core values have remained unchanged.

The Chatham Borough Police Department prides itself in upholding values of integrity, respect, service, and fairness. The Department strives to promote a safe and secure environment and maintain order and provide safe flow of traffic while demonstrating the core ideals. It has continually responded to the changing needs of Chatham Borough and has looked to help the community in the best possible way. By demonstrating strong leadership qualities, the Chatham Borough Police Department has remained a reliable and strong influence in Chatham Borough.

Throughout the past century, the Chatham Borough Police Department has dedicated itself to the surrounding community, yet, it is

always looking for ways to give back. It influences the youth in Chatham through the D.A.R.E. program, which helps to illustrate the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol. Additionally, it continues to promote internet safety through a program that aims to educate both parents and children on the subject matter.

Overall, the Chatham Borough Police Department has continued to exemplify extraordinary citizenship and values while putting its officers in harm's way to ensure the safety and the betterment of its residents. Officers respond to every call without fear, and their efforts are commended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Chatham Borough Police Department as it celebrates its 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Junior League of Morristown, located in Morristown, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary.

As a non-profit, charitable organization of women, the Junior League of Morristown aims to ``bring people and needs'' together through the promotion of voluntarism, the development of potential in women, and the improvement of communities through adept leadership and action. Since its founding in 1936, the Junior League of Morristown has been completely nondiscriminatory in its acceptance of women, as demonstrated by the members' diverse backgrounds. There are over 390 active members that compose the Junior League of Morristown, an organization that is 1 of the 292 total Junior Leagues that make up the Association of Junior Leagues International, which draws from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and Mexico.

Since its creation in 1936, the Junior League of Morristown has played a significant role in the development of Morristown and the surrounding area. The League has dedicated both time and effort to a plethora of charitable and non-charitable organizations, such as The Neighborhood House, Morristown Hospital, the Girl Scouts, the Red Cross during World War II emergencies, the Children's Theatre, and the Arts Council of the Morris Area, just to name a few. The League has received a number of grants and donations in order to continue its charitable work in the surrounding community. The Junior League is also proud to operate The Nearly New Shop resale and consignment shop located in Morristown.

In most recent news, the Junior League of Morristown made headlines when it finished a project with the Jersey Battered Women's Service that transformed a common room into a multi-purpose room for victims healing from violent acts. The Morristown Patch and The Daily Record, area newspapers, both cover the tremendous effort by the League. The JBWS director, Patty Sly commented: ``We are so appreciative of the JLM for sharing their time and talents to create a relaxing and healing environment for our clients. Their efforts offer hope and dignity to those seeking protection from abuse. This is just one of many projects that the JLM has assisted us with over the years and we are grateful for our ongoing partnership.'' The project is only one of many that the League has pursued over its 75 year existence, yet it symbolizes the values that every community should strive to uphold. While it did receive a little bit of press coverage for a seemingly ``small'' project, a newspaper cannot do justice in describing what the Junior League of Morristown means to its community.

Charitable organizations, such as the Junior League of Morristown, provide an invaluable and meaningful service to towns such as Morristown. The Junior League of Morristown has always been available and willing to lend a helping hand when it was needed, and with the support of the local residents, its staff and volunteers, it will continue to do so for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Junior League of Morristown as they celebrate their 75th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saint Clare's Health System, located in the Township of Denville, Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 60th anniversary.

The history of Saint Clare's Health System dates back to 1895, when the Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, the founders of Saint Clare's, came to Denville. After building a health resort that saw tremendous success, the Sisters decided it was time to go forth with another project in 1940. However, World War II intervened, and the project did not take root until 1949. With the post-war housing boom and migration to the suburbs, the Sisters saw a growing need for a hospital in Denville and the surrounding area. Finally, after building a 157-bed hospital at a cost of $3.25 million and hiring a staff of 35 nurses and medical technicians, the Sisters opened Saint Clare's Hospital Auxiliary on September 24, 1953.

Saint Clare's commitments and expectations in the community have grown, as it continues to explore new ways to enhance its medical care. Saint Clare's now encompasses hospitals in Denville, Dover, and Boonton Township, with other facilities scattered throughout both Morris and Sussex Counties, featuring the most up-to-date technology and offering the most compassionate care in the community. Denville and the surrounding area have come to rely on Saint Clare's in its times of need, and Saint Clare's has always responded with open arms.

The Saint Clare's Health System tradition is built on values such as reverence, integrity, compassion, and excellence. In exhibiting those core values, Saint Clare's has become one of the most prestigious health services in northern New Jersey. Saint Clare's aims to nurture those in need of medical help by offering a wide range of medical services, like women's health, maternal-child care, emergency services, pediatrics, behavioral therapy, cardiovascular care, weight loss surgery, and a world-class cancer center. Through those medical services, Saint Clare's has been able to provide the most personal and most advanced health care to Denville and the surrounding municipalities, while emphasizing human dignity and social justice by helping create healthier communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Saint Clare's Health System as it celebrates its 60th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of H.R. 2609, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

The amendment would prohibit, as she said, hydraulic fracking operations or fracking within the Inglewood Oil Field in Los Angeles.

I appreciate my colleague's passion for this particular issue and obviously her desire to protect her constituents, but the Energy and Water appropriations bill is not the proper place for such a unique prohibition on fracking.

Inglewood Oil Field is not Federal land nor does the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy have any current projects that involve Inglewood in its natural gas portfolio. Furthermore, fracking activities are currently regulated both locally and by her own State of California.

This is a complex authorizing issue, but we are still waiting to hear from the Department's lawyers on what effect, if any, this language would actually have in the fiscal year 2014. Therefore, I must oppose her amendment and urge other Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure, though. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers has always been one of the top priorities in our Energy and Water bill.

Total program level funding is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level. There is very strong Member interest in the harbor maintenance activities, and most of these additional funds were included in the Operation and Maintenance account. Even so, construction funding is less than 1 percent below the President's budget.

On the other hand, the bill already reduces funding for fossil energy by $84 million below the fiscal year 2013 level. That's a 16 percent reduction. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and we will need to continue to use these valuable energy resources for generations to come. Research conducted within this program ensures we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground.

We simply cannot take a further reduction to this account, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I will support the amendment, but I do have some concerns.

Of course we want the Corps to take a look at the cost of their operation across the Nation to see where they can make savings.

We are seeking from the Corps information before we make any final decisions, but I'm supportive of their objectives. We just need to take a closer look at the financial justification for what they're doing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

We accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I look forward to working with my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who is a strong advocate on behalf of Kentucky, for jobs for Kentucky and the Paducah

plant. We do appreciate the work that the Department is doing to reindustrialize the Paducah site. We also recognize that the cleanup on the site must get done in a timely fashion, and we hope to work with the various stakeholders and with Congressman Whitfield to ensure that happens.

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

I rise to oppose the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. His amendment is overly broad and would prevent the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Nuclear Security Agency, all agencies covered under our bill, from leasing or purchasing any new vehicles.

I understand my colleague's concern with the size of vehicle fleet within some of these agencies; and, in fact, I share some of those very concerns. That's why our bill actually carries a reporting requirement within the Department of Energy to report on its vehicle fleet.

However, this amendment would have serious unintended consequences, ranging from maintenance of Corps sites to science at our national labs, such of which are tied to the nuclear stockpile that are involved in protecting our nuclear sites.

Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. I certainly understand his reasons for doing it. I'm supportive in theory, but there are some potentially unintended consequences, so I must oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

If I may ask a question of Mr. Scalise, are you seeking money for the overall account or are you seeking a certain amount of money for a project in your neck of the woods in Louisiana?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

And let me say, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. I know it's a high priority for his district and others around the Nation.

The bill before us includes over $5 million to continue studies, engineering and design work and various components of the program. That's nearly 6 percent of the entire Investigations account dedicated to continuing work in coastal restoration in Louisiana.

The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill. While the Army Corps was a high priority, it was not completely spared. The Construction account, specifically, is slightly below the President's budget request, and almost 20 percent below the fiscal year 2013 appropriations.

The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were not included in the President's budget and, so, aren't likely to be funded in fiscal year 2014.

While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be completed and the Federal Government can realize the public safety, economic and other benefits from previous spending,

rather than starting new projects. It's unclear to me whether this is a new project, but I take the gentleman at his word that this is not a new project.

I do oppose the amendment. The reduction would substantially work against our purposes of trying to balance the Federal budget and lower the Federal deficit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I support the gentleman's amendment. As he said, we had a similar provision in last year's bill, and we know the concerns are acute in the power marketing regions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment because I know my colleague, my friend from Kentucky, has an incredible reputation of being the friend of animals and birds. Obviously, we are concerned about the issues he has raised.

Our bill already reduces the Wind Energy program from $59 million to $24 million, a cut of nearly 60 percent. His amendment goes a step further by eliminating the Wind Energy program entirely, which would result in the termination of the first offshore wind at-scale demonstration in the United States and would result in a dramatic drop- off in the U.S. deployment of wind energy systems. This setback would come at a time when wind is renewable energy's fastest growing sector.

I oppose my colleague's amendment. I am certainly aware of his heartfelt concern. We are listening to what he said, but I still oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I salute his leadership in this area, both in this Congress and the past Congresses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the

gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.

The gentleman makes the case that there's a need for this infrastructure, and maybe there is; but the Corps of Engineers has no particular expertise or reason for being the funding source. Especially when we're looking at such tight budgets to begin with, we must focus the Corps' funding on activities which have the greatest impact on our economy and public safety, namely, navigation and flood control--our historic responsibility. So I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I'm pleased to accept the amendment from my friend from New York State and his annual advocacy on behalf of this cause.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I'm pleased to support the amendment. And let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his advocacy for his own congressional district and his State, and I commend him.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. We've gone over this ground several times so I'll be brief.

All of us here strongly support investments in the Corps' work and their projects, particularly those projects with the greatest benefit to public safety and the economy, namely flood control and navigation. But this amendment proposes to pay for additional Corps construction by diverting funds needed for our nuclear weapons stockpile for national security. And that is the most critical priority in our bill.

And so I strongly oppose the amendment. His amendment is unacceptable because it is an issue of national security, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Himes of Connecticut makes a good point about the importance of making infrastructure investments before major disasters can occur. I share his concerns about the backlog of Army Corps of Engineers projects, particularly in the backdrop of communities throughout the New England and the Mid-Atlantic area that continue to rebuild after one of the worst storms in our Nation's history.

I want to assure the gentleman that the committee's position on New Starts is reconsidered each and every year. We take a look at the funding requirements of ongoing studies and projects, new studies and projects, and overall funding levels for certain accounts.

I commend the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I look forward to working with him to address these new needs at the earliest appropriate time, and I yield back to the gentleman.

I appreciate my colleagues from New Mexico raising their concern for the long-term vitality of the National Nuclear Security Administration's laboratories.

I look forward to working with both of you to make sure that the levels allowed for the Laboratory Directed Research and Development, or the LDRD, program do not adversely impact the national security capability of these remarkable laboratories.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would cut funding, which has already been cut today, for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, on top of reductions that we also took of 16 percent in our bill before we brought our bill to the floor.

We all know that American families and businesses are struggling to pay high gas prices. This Fossil Energy Research and Development program holds the potential, once and for all, to prevent future high gas prices and substantially increase our energy security. To cut it further would be dangerous and counterproductive, so I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his continued leadership on fossil fuel research. He knows it firsthand. He is a strong advocate. He is a strong supporter of NETL, of which he speaks, which is an important center for a critical, critical purpose.

As he knows well, fossil energy provides 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and research into tapping these resources as efficiently and as cleanly as possible is vital to our energy security.

I look forward to continuing to work with him and our other colleagues who have interest in fossil energy research through conference to ensure this vital program has adequate resources.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I appreciate his persistence in trying to find an offset.

I, of course, share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure. In fact, as I've said on a number of occasions, the Corps of Engineers was really one of our primary priorities in putting our bill together. The total program level is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level.

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account specifically is at the President's request. These funds will go primarily to training and response activities. If repairs to projects are necessary due to storms, the Corps has previously-appropriated, unobligated Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies funds which could be used for these purposes.

On the other hand, the bill has already reduced funding for fossil energy by $84 million, which is a 16 percent reduction, and I believe we took another substantial reduction earlier this evening. Research conducted within this program ensures that we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. We simply can't take another reduction to this account.

For this reason and several others, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague for his interest and strong advocacy on behalf of the Jefferson Lab and for the nuclear physics program. Our allocation has made for some tough choices, and we worked hard to fund the Office of Science at $32 million above current levels, post-sequester. This level of funding is sufficient to support a $7.5 million increase for the Medium Energy Nuclear Physics program, which goes to the Jefferson Lab.

I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and look forward to working with him to support this vital program through the appropriations process.

I also assure my colleague that the bill keeps CEBAF on track to begin operations in fiscal year 2014.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

Our colleague from California describes yet another troubling example of what seems to be Federal overreach, regulatory overreach. I support his amendment, which I think addresses the situation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I don't have any objection to the amendment, although I do have a few concerns, which I'd like to cover.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague for bringing these issues to our attention. If, in fact, the Corps' actions are detrimental to flood control efforts in his region, those types of actions need to be stopped, and I would be happy to work with him to do that.

I do believe, of course, that some of these issues would be better dealt with by the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction over the Corps and the Endangered Species Act. So I think there are some concerns that we have that are legitimate here. We're going to do some more investigation and work with the gentleman to see if we can address his concerns.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a

general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget

authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another

amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater

decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of

rule XXI.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has costs associated with it. The Corps' current pricing policy is based upon ``updated cost of storage'' which reflects today's value (indexed to current price levels) rather than at the original construction cost price level. So reverting to construction cost levels will unavoidably have a cost, with the net effect of increasing the level of budget authority in the bill.

Under section 3(d)(3), an increase in budget authority must be accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. This

amendment does not contain an equal or greater decrease, and so violates section 3(d)(3).

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The House has worked its will over the past 2 days, and dozens of amendments have been considered in a very open and amicable process. This bill strengthens national security, fosters a stronger economy, and maintains important infrastructure that keeps American open for business and promotes job opportunities.

And we do all of this while making some tough, but smart, funding decisions, saving taxpayers $2.9 billion over last year's enacted level. We have just 2\1/2\ months left before the end of the year. This is the time to act. Now is the time to pass our government funding bills. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.