Floor Statements

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 consideration of H.R. 2609, and that I might include tabular material on the same.

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

It is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Development bill before the membership of the House.

However, before I go through its highlights, I would like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard work and friendship. It's been a real honor to work with you, and I look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. I would also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so responsibly.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill, and several others before it, to the floor under an open rule.

The bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 billion below last year's levels and more than $4 billion below the President's request.

The budget allocation we received this year made for some very difficult decisions, but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense, our nuclear deterrent, also the critical work of the Army Corps of Engineers and other activities on which the Federal Government must take the lead. The reductions we had to make to the applied energy research and development programs will shift more of their work to the private sector.

The bill provides $7.6 billion, an increase of $98 million above the fiscal year 2013 amount, to modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, excluding rescissions.

I would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding to

implement the President's recently announced plans in Berlin to reduce the nuclear stockpile. No funding for such purposes will be available until Congress has judged that these plans will fully support our national defense.

The recommendations increase the Corps of Engineers by $50 million above the President's request and redirects funds to ensure our waterways and harbors keep America open for business and economically competitive. These waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. As in previous fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding.

Basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's post-sequestration levels.

Environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the Manhattan Project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion, approximately $185 million above the post-sequester levels for fiscal year 2013.

In order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy research and development had to be cut. The recommendation prioritizes funding in this area for programs which truly support American manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices, and diversity of energy supplies.

Our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and $650 million for nuclear energy activities. Both of these programs are cut below the fiscal year 2013 post-sequester level.

The bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, and provides $983 million for these activities, excluding rescissions. The recommendation orients these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience--to include cybersecurity--and gasoline prices.

Finally, on Yucca Mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million to sustain the program, along with similar language as last year's prohibiting activities which keep that facility from being usable in the future. It also includes support for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get that Yucca license application finally finished. No funding is included for requested activities to move past the Yucca Mountain repository program. If and when Congress authorizes changes to the program of record, the committee will consider funding for alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities and makes the tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without sacrificing our most critical of Federal functions. I'm expecting a vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank those who helped bring this bill on the floor. On the majority side: our clerk, Rob Blair; Angie Giancarlo; Ben Hammond; Loraine Heckenberg; Perry Yates; Adam Borrelli. On the minority side: Taunja Berquam. From our personal offices, Ms. Kaptur's: Nathan Facey, her deputy chief of staff; and Ryan Steyer. From my staff: Nancy Fox, my chief of staff; and Katie Hazlett.

All of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this process work, one that we can be proud of, and I think we have a bill that, indeed, we can be proud of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.004

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I ask if the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, is prepared to close.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Michigan is correct: the Department of Energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds, as needed, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either from funds appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this purpose that remain unspent. This language would also allow the Department of Energy to reprogram funds and subsequently transfer them to the NRC for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure that no one could claim that access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the review of the Yucca Mountain license application.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would also like to recognize his leadership on this issue as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has worked hard with his colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. The administration must apply the law that Congress already enacted and get this job done.

We look forward to working with the gentleman to get this appropriation enacted and to get this license wrapped up at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for being a strong advocate for sufficiently maintaining his waterways and the Nation's waterways. These ports and channels are very important, not only to the Great Lakes' economy, but to our national economy, and I want to commend him for his attention to the needs of his constituents. He is extremely knowledgeable from a professional point of view and certainly as a Member of Congress, who voted to the needs of his constituents.

The committee has heard from many Members, including from those from the Great Lakes, who are concerned that the administration's budget processing has left small, remote, subsistence ports across the Nation unable to continue to conduct business due to inadequate or oftentimes nonexistent maintenance. These are what prompted the committee to include a minimum of $30 million to be made available to such ports. The Great Lakes' ports will certainly be eligible for this funding. I believe our bill addresses his concerns to the greatest priority possible in light of other priorities which he mentioned in our bill, which are, obviously, balancing the Federal budget and controlling spending.

I want to thank our colleague for bringing the concerns of the Great Lakes' ports to our attention. We will do our level best to work with the gentleman. We honor his request.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your longstanding commitment to Hanford, and I support this amendment, which is aimed at strengthening environmental management in the Richland Operations Office. EM is a priority for the subcommittee. I look forward to returning to Hanford, as I have in the past, to get a firsthand look at the latest challenges and progress, and we know there are lots of challenges.

As you know, Representative Hastings, the Department of Energy has not yet provided confirmation of probable tank leaks, a Record of Decision on the potential for tank TRU waste, or a plan for the waste treatment plant. This information will be required as Congress completes the appropriations process for the Office of River Protection.

In the event of a continuing resolution, the Department of Energy has the flexibility in determining funding levels for individual programs and projects, including EM.

Mr. Hastings, I am pleased to support your amendment and I wish its success.

I object.

Would the gentlewoman be able to identify the amendment which she is proposing?

I withdraw my objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment increases funding for science, ARPA-E, and renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by a total of $1.7 billion, using defense environmental cleanup as an offset.

Defense environmental cleanup provides funding to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project, as we discussed earlier, which is a huge task that will take years to do. It will be a major expense and will take significant resources. We heard part of the Washington State story, but there is part of it in other parts of the country as well.

The Federal Government has an inherent responsibility to address this legacy and to ensure that the materials created to build our nuclear weapons stockpile do not endanger the public health and the environment. There are also some other daunting technical challenges in cleaning up this waste, and this amendment would, frankly, completely gut those types of programs. It is doubtful that this level would even sustain the basic operation and maintenance of the facilities, let alone allow for any progress in the cleanup effort. The cleanup effort needs to be sustained.

Our allocation has made, as I said earlier in the afternoon, for very tough choices. We placed the highest priority on activities on which the Federal Government must take the lead. While the applied energy and advanced research programs are down substantially, admittedly, there is a strong interest in advancing these areas of research, and the responsibility for conducting that research can shift, in many ways, to the private sector. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge other Members to do the same.

I yield to the gentlelady.

In reclaiming my time, we know that the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place. We know of your heartfelt views. We would be happy to work with you to see what we can do to assist in these other areas, but this environmental cleanup, in some respects, is court-ordered besides there being, obviously, the potential for human health to be adversely affected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I understand he may be offering some other amendments similarly related later on the floor. Suffice it to say that my remarks here will also pertain to those amendments.

This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapon activity by $245 million in order to increase funding for renewable energy, energy reliability, and efficiency activities. Ensuring funding to maintain our nuclear stockpile is our highest priority in our Energy and Water development bill. Historically, it always has been and will continue to be. We have put off for too long the investments that are needed to ensure that we maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile in the future.

Because of this historical underfunding, there's been strong bipartisan support for increasing weapons activities. Our bill takes a responsible approach to meeting those needs, reducing funding $193 million below the request for nonessential activities within the weapons activities account that are not required to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile, but there are no further savings available. A reduction of this magnitude would severely impact the National Nuclear Security Administration's ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons, something which the Secretary of Energy has to do to our Commander in Chief each and every year.

I support the programs championed by my colleague. That's why we worked hard to increase the advanced manufacturing program by $5 million over fiscal year 2013 within an account that is cut by $971 million.

I oppose the amendment and urge Members to do likewise, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. First of all, I want to salute him for being a strong advocate for water power. I think those of us on the committee are as well.

His amendment would increase, as we're aware, funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $31 million using the Department's administration account as an offset to restore the water power program to the requested level. Our allocation, as I've said a number of times, made for some really tough choices. Our bill cuts applied energy and advanced research programs to allow more funding for inherently Federal responsibilities.

While I support the program championed by my colleague, we can simply not afford to increase energy reliable activities so significantly by diverting funding from other essential activities within the Department of Energy. One of the issues within the Department of Energy is they've had management issues. They need money to better manage a lot of the activities. They have a new Secretary of Energy. He needs the resources to do it. If we keep tapping from this account, there will be no money to pay for the management and operation and the accountability we expect from the chief executive of this Department. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose his amendment and urge Members to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I object to waiving the reading, and I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, 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 a greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.

The amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I move to strike the last word, and oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman from Georgia's amendment would further cut funding for renewable energy and energy reliability and efficiency program by an additional 1 percent from the levels contained in our bill.

The Energy and Water Development bill cuts levels by $2.9 billion below last year's level, including $971 million from renewable energy and energy-efficient activities. In just those accounts alone, that's 50 percent below fiscal year 2013, and 67 percent below the President's request.

To that end, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts. Our bill focuses the vast majority of remaining funds within this account on programs that can address high gas prices and help American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. These programs can reduce American manufacturing costs, help companies compete in that market, creating jobs here at home.

Reducing Federal spending is critical. That's why the bill reduces funding for this account to half its current levels. But we also must make strategic investments to address high gas prices and help America compete.

The amendment would eliminate these important programs. I urge Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman's amendment, as he said, would increase funding for this EERE account and by cutting weapons activities in the NNSA administration and using that as an offset.

Our bill not only cuts the renewable energy and energy efficiency accounts, it also cuts fossil energy by $84 million, 16 percent, nuclear energy by 14 percent.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, our allocation made for some tough choices. We've placed highest priority on activities in which the Federal Government must take the lead. One of those, of course, the most critical mass is assuring funding for national security. It's our highest priority.

While I support the programs that he outlines, we should not divert to programs from national security. Therefore, I oppose his amendment and ask Members to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Our bill already cuts the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, within the Department of Energy. We cut it by $15 million below the President's request. That's a 33 percent reduction. Quite honestly, I don't think the facility could take any further reductions that undermine this budget consolidation, which is something we've sought, something which the Department of Energy has gone ahead with. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and urge others to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment offers, as he said, a $1 million gesture of support for renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency activities in the Department of Energy. It would increase funding by $1 million using the departmental administration as its offset.

While I support my colleague's good intention, what he calls his signal gesture of support, we simply cannot afford to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy by diverting funding from other essential activities. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment would eliminate all renewable energy and energy efficiency activities, fossil energy activities, and severely reduce funding for nuclear energy in favor of deficit savings. And, of course, the committee has done a lot; we have done a lot of cutting. We are way below the 2008 level. I think we have made a commitment in our committee to reduce spending and contribute to reducing the deficit.

Nuclear energy research does keep American innovation at the forefront of the technology that we invented. I think we need to continue that leadership.

Fossil energy, whether people like it or not, provides 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and we need to find ways to refine and make it even more productive.

Lastly, renewable energy addresses high gas prices and helps America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Maybe not all of those activities are imperative, but renewable energy is part of that equation,

and our bill supports diversity of energy supply. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge Members to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would increase Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency by $10 million using, once again, as others have before him, the Departmental Administration account as an offset.

As I said earlier, our allocation did make for some tough choices. One thing we know is that you can't operate a Department of Energy unless you have staff doing oversight and doing the tough work of reviewing contracts to make sure the money we give them is well spent.

So with all due respect, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. We cannot divert more money from the essential department activities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would increase funding for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency activities of the Department of Energy by $15 million using Weapons Activities within the Nuclear National Nuclear Security Administration as an offset. While I and I think all the committee members support the programs championed by my colleague, we simply cannot afford to increase efficiency and renewable energy activities by diverting funding from inherently Federal responsibilities. The focus and primary responsibility of the Department of Energy is indeed to make sure that we have a modern nuclear weapons stockpile, even if we don't need to use it. It has to be verified by the Secretary to the President. So this would divert funds from that essential mission.

I oppose the amendment, urge Members to do likewise, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Let me say it may be the relative lateness of the hour, but I welcome the comity with which you put forward your amendment.

May I just say for the record that having handled the Hurricane Sandy supplemental, I can make you aware that our power was off in our very modern part of northern New Jersey for the vast number of my constituents for over 2\1/2\ weeks. Even despite the best minds in the Nation, some of which still circle around the remains of Bell Laboratories, we still didn't get it right. But having said that, I appreciate your intent and your good humor.

Our primary focus has been national defense and nuclear security. I don't think this is the time when we should be taking away from that modernization project, which is important and something which has to be certified in terms of being reliable to the President by the Secretary of Energy.

So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, 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 to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

The object being increased has first year outlays of $72,500,000. The objects being decreased have decreased first year outlays of $71,250,000, leading to a net outlay increase of $1,250,000.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Madam Chair, I would ask that the reading continue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

As I said on other occasions, ensuring adequate funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is our highest priority in our Energy and Water Development bill. This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these very critical national security investments, and therefore I oppose the amendment and ask others to do as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Again, our committee's priorities are well known. The modernization of our nuclear stockpile is a national security issue. We need to continue to make those investments.

I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

First of all, while I appreciate the concerns that he has raised about the Office of Science, just for the record, the Office of Science has been funded at $32 million above the current post-sequester levels, so they have plenty of money.

I rise, more importantly, on the second issue. This money comes from $25 million that we've set aside to address Yucca Mountain where we, as taxpayers, have put well over $12- to $15 billion of investment as a repository for high-level nuclear waste. We understand the dynamics of the State and resistance on the part of many there, but we also know that if we are ever to recoup that investment in the future, since consumers and taxpayers pay for that facility, that we are going to need some money to reopen Yucca Mountain.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, urge others to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill: Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup outlays at 65 percent, an increase in outlays of $3,250,000; and nuclear energy outlays at 55 percent, a decrease in outlays of $2,750,000, resulting in a net increase in outlays of $500,000.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair at this time.

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

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. His amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E by $127 million, using offsets from weapons activities and our Fossil Energy account.

While I support the ARPA-E program personally, we simply cannot afford to divert funds from our highest priorities, which are the nuclear weapons modernization program. The Fossil Energy account has been cut already, and I don't think it should sustain any further cuts, so I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

His amendment would cut $158 million from the Office of Science within the Department of Energy in favor of deficit savings. I should say for the record we cut approximately $220 million from last year's number. So we've substantially reduced this account.

Let me just say, too, that the basic science program within the Department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our Nation. Cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, hurts American scientists and industry, and I think to some extent blemishes our credibility as a worldwide leader in basic science programs.

I therefore oppose this amendment, urge others to do likewise, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but let me salute the gentleman from Florida for his patience--I know he has been in the Chamber at least 5 or 6 hours waiting for his mark in this bill so he could get up--and also for the kind words, but most especially those directed towards our staff, which, as you know, have been dealing with an open rule, which is part of our process here, and juggling quite a few amendments which continue to come over the transom and will be coming over the transom all night. Indeed, I wanted to thank you for that recognition.

I do oppose the amendment because it would increase funding for the Office of Science, not because I don't support the Office of Science, but it would hit our National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activity account. I do support the basic science programs championed by our colleague. We worked hard in our committee to prioritize basic science. As I said earlier, this bill actually increases the Office of Science's budget by $32 million above the current post-sequester level, but we still make national defense the first priority in our bill, and so I oppose this amendment and urge others to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but I do salute the gentleman for his work at the Fermilab, one of the finest labs in the Nation. Obviously, we appreciate his knowledge, and I would salute his contributions to science during his career before he came here.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I oppose his amendment. A cut of this magnitude to the weapons activities would seriously endanger our ability to carry out the modernization work that I talked about earlier, and so I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for NNSA's weapons activities by $325 million in order to increase funding for ARPA-E at the Department of Energy.

I am supportive of ARPA-E, but a reduction of this magnitude in the National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities account would seriously affect their ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons.

These weapons have to be certified by the Secretary of Energy to the President, our Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary's ability to do that would be hurt by cuts of this magnitude.

And for this, and other reasons, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program--and certainly some of his knowledge of the program is entirely accurate--the elimination of this funding would hurt Federal oversight of the more than $8 billion in loans already given. As our committee report states, there are no new applications for this program, and the Department of Energy doesn't expect any. The committee recommendation includes the $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio, and no more.

So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure proper oversight of taxpayers' funding that's already out there in the form of loans, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment. This is, though, a very important program, and I support it, our committee supports it. But this program is primarily funded within the Office of Legacy Management. That office receives substantive funding in this bill under the account for other defense activities.

Funding for the Legacy Management increases $3.4 million over fiscal year 2013. The Office of Legacy Management is the correct office to provide stewardship for the legacy sites. They are the experts. And I am happy to help ensure that this very important program receives support within available funding for Legacy Management.

I look forward to working with Ms. Jackson Lee to support this program as we move on through the appropriations process, but I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, our bill had many competing priorities with a low allocation, and I appreciate my colleague's commitment to finding more savings in the bill. He is ever persistent, and I salute his willingness to challenge us each year on the floor when we do this energy and water bill, and we are not the only bill where he makes these challenges.

However, the Department Administration account in our recommendation was already suffering a $49 million cut from last year's level. Earlier amendments that we did this afternoon and this evening have taken another $60 million. There is not a lot of money left to run the department.

While some may want to close down the department, the department has some pretty incredible responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety and national defense and things that relate to cleanups and things of this nature. If they had to respond--if you will pardon the expression--to some of the emergencies that we might have as a Nation, and we know our deficit is an emergency situation, they might not be able to respond on our behalf.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Our bill provides $560 billion for the B61 Life Extension Program, $23.7 million above the request.

I understand there are concerns about the cost of the refurbishment of the B61 and the committee shares those concerns. As a result, this bill contains a provision that requires that NNSA provide a full analysis of the alternatives that were considered. But failing to move forward without the full support of the B61 refurbishment will put that program even further behind what is already a tight schedule.

The Government Accountability Office conducted a study of the B61 Life Extension Program in 2011 and reported there was no room left in the refurbishment schedule. If the Life Extension Program slips further behind, there will be gaps in the United States commitment to our NATO allies.

In fiscal year 2012, NNSA performed a full cost estimate for the B61 refurbishment, and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation validated those costs. This was the most comprehensive and accurate performed by the NNSA on a life extension to date--aka the administration was behind the most comprehensive and accurate report on the program to date--and the costs, by everybody's admission, were admittedly staggering.

Those costs were ultimately verified and provided to the committee in a cost report. The amount of funding in this bill is consistent with that cost report and provides $23.7 million above the amount requested, which fell slightly short of the validated figures.

The National Nuclear Security Administration explained the shortfall away by stating they would find unspecified ``efficiencies in the program,'' hence the additional money.

While I do support a concerted effort that will lower the cost of this program to the taxpayer, we never received any plan on how the NNSA--aka the administration--proposes to find savings. This is not the first time this has happened.

The administration has as a stated goal to reduce the overall cost of the W76 Life Extension Program. The Department of Energy's inspector general reported there was no credible plan to make savings and that the lower funding levels being requested would simply lead to delays in the refurbishment.

We cannot allow the B61 Life Extension Program to be further delayed given the important role it serves in providing a nuclear umbrella to our allies.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment and I salute, obviously, his desire to protect all of our nuclear sites. I certainly share the gentleman's concern for the security of nuclear weapons infrastructure.

The security incursion at Y-12 in Oak Ridge in July of 2012 revealed some disturbing problems with Federal oversight that directly impacted the effectiveness of the protective forces. In particular, a botched security upgrade project caused an excessive number of false alarms, which distracted the security forces. And poor maintenance practices meant the security cameras where the protesters entered the high- security area were not working.

There is also a second security upgrade project at Los Alamos that was installed incorrectly. The National Nuclear Security Administration is still working on getting that project back on track.

We need to be able to upgrade our security systems, but I have concerns that taking on a third project in 2014 will lead to more problems.

Our report has directed NNSA to wait a year before starting the project at Nevada. Given the problems, I feel this is the most prudent path forward and will give the administration some time to implement the reforms that are so urgently needed in security oversight and project management. So I must reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The W76 life extension program is a critical ongoing program to extend the life of that warhead. This warhead supports the mission of our Navy's ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of our nuclear deterrent.

Our nuclear deterrent posture relies heavily on this Navy mission, but the President's budget request proposed to cut production of the W76 by nearly 20 percent. I'm very concerned that these reductions to the W76 were proposed without fully explaining the force structure implications or the impacts to national security.

Therefore, this bill restores full funding for the W76 to the levels previously provided to the committee last year in the NNSA's last acquisition report. Even the Department of Energy's inspector general provided a report that stated that the National Nuclear Security Administration's plans to try to reduce costs of the ongoing W76 program would not be achieved. That IG concluded the NNSA would need additional funds above the request to stay on track with their production requirements. This bill resolves those funding problems by increasing funding $13 million above the request.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This is the final year of funding to a project to construct a limited number of centrifuges in order to demonstrate this technology can provide a domestic capability for enriching uranium. This capability is needed to ensure adequate supplies of enriched uranium for our defense needs.

Domestically enriched uranium is needed to supply tritium for the nuclear weapons stockpile and will eventually be needed to fuel the nuclear reactors on board our submarines and aircraft carriers. Even though we have found a way to supply all our needs for the next few years, there is still no plan on how we will fulfill our defense requirements after the limited amount of fuel has been expended.

In every future scenario, we will ultimately need to make an investment to ensure unencumbered enriched uranium is available. There is no reason to cut off funding for a project that is showing progress.

The total cost of this project was originally estimated to cost $300 million, but the project is proceeding extremely well, it remains on budget, and is on schedule for completion this December. Because of these and other expected cost savings from uranium transfers, the overall cost to the taxpayer has been reduced and could be reduced further.

The bill provides the Department with special reprogramming authority to fund the final $48 million installment, instead of direct funding. Providing the Department with flexibility on how to fulfill its portion of the cost-sharing agreement could reduce the overall costs of the program if that same progress continues and the full funding amount is not ultimately needed.

This is a responsible approach that meets our defense needs while potentially saving taxpayer dollars.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Following the doctor's lead, for the reasons I opposed this amendment the last time, I oppose this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Our bill supports the most responsible path forward for dealing with this ongoing and troubled project.

The National Nuclear Security Administration has stated it is conducting a strategic pause to pursue other alternatives to the MOX plant in light of what are very large cost increases. However, it has not provided any information on what new alternatives are available which have not already been exhaustively considered. While there are considerable and valid concerns about the project's management and cost growth, the United States must fulfill its end of the plutonium disposition agreement, and more delays will only raise costs.

It is time for the Department of Energy to fix these issues and to get back

on track with meeting its commitments. There is no value in prolonging this study into fiscal year 2014.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 15 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment, worked out jointly with the minority and the authorizing committees.

It would amend the existing section 311 to require only the report on analysis of alternatives for major weapons programs to be submitted to both the authorizers and appropriators. This is a change requested by the authorizers, and I am happy to be able to include it. I ask that this amendment be supported.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 59, line 9 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

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

The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of continuing the Yucca Mountain Repository. The language that this amendment would strike, we have been carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the House alive, and the American people support what we're doing.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and 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 12 o'clock and 3 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The rationale we have been talking about here is a human rationale. We have, as we speak, over 60,000 military serving doing the work of freedom in Afghanistan.

As they prepare to leave, we should not be cutting funding in these very dangerous times. As you are leaving, you are incredibly vulnerable. They're still in the fight, they're still working hard, they need to protect themselves.

While the administration hasn't offered any strategic plan, other than a date for withdrawal, those who serve there deserve our support because they have an important mission to perform. Whether it is in Kabul or a forward-operating base, they are in a dangerous situation.

The reality is that things in Afghanistan are hotter than the administration estimated in their budget request. We need this money for contingencies. We need this money because of the delay due to Pakistan affecting our ground transportation--our exit.

I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department, located in Montville Township, New Jersey, which is celebrating its Centennial Anniversary.

In 1913, the citizens of Pine Brook, an area within Montville Township, decided to organize a Fire Department to protect their community. Using land donated by Abram A. Van Wert, the people of Pine Brook built their own firehouse, which is still in use; the only changes being the addition of overhead doors and a rear meeting room. The people also provided the funds needed to start the fire company through donations. With the location and funds in place, the Pine Brook Fire Department was able to designate bell codes and zones, and purchase their first pieces of equipment; two hand-pulled chemical fire extinguishers. Over the following eight months, the Fire Department held a number of fundraising raffles, giving away pigs, ponies, clocks, and watches. With these funds, they were able to purchase a chassis from Republic Truck with two chemical tanks, a 150-foot reel of hose, and a small chemical holder and acid receptacle. Two years later, the headlights and bumper were purchased. This served the town until 1924, when the truck was sold to Hanover, and an American-LaFrance truck was purchased in its place. Throughout these early years the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department provided protection to the towns of Hanover, Parsippany, and to the Township of Caldwell.

Over the coming years, the department struggled to maintain operation due to insufficient funds. The citizens were informed that, because of their lack of interest and support, the fire department would have to be turned over to the Township of Montville. This prompted the people to pledge greater support in the future, and the Fire Department has since thrived. In later years, the department successfully petitioned for a Fire Commission Board, and held elections in February 1937. By this time, demand for aid had grown, and a 750 gallon Mack pumper truck was acquired. In 1954, the department joined the North Jersey Volunteer Firemen's Association, and in the following year joined the Montville Firemen's Relief Organization. Around the same time, the population had increased to a problematic number; the water supply was unable to cope with the fires in the area, and feasible solutions were difficult to find. However, in 1955, the department was able to build a special 1,500 gallon tank truck, the only one of its kind in this area. In 1965, the department purchased a Mack Diesel Pumper, the second diesel fire truck to be delivered in the State of New Jersey. Later, in 1969 a Hahn Pumper was purchased, and in 1972 a Telesquirt Pumper was added to the fleet.

Since 1963, the substantial growth has transformed Pine Brook from a rural community to an area diverse with industrial, commercial, and residential properties, all of which are served by the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department. This increase caused the department to build another fire station on Konner Avenue, which was dedicated and placed into service in June 1969. The Township of Montville, recognizing the growth, expanded the water system with the installation of water mains and hydrants throughout the township in 1970. Later in 1975, plans for a new, larger headquarters on Bloomfield Avenue next to the existing firehouse began. Two years later, the department was able to operate out of the new station. With the increases in demand over the coming years, they added a Rescue and Salvage truck, a ladder truck, as well as other pumper trucks to their fleet. With the enactment of the Uniform Fire Code in 1986 by the State of New Jersey, Montville Township established three separate Local Enforcing Agencies, with the Pine Brook Fire Prevention Bureau serving under District #3 LEA. To meet the new inspection and code requirements, the Pine Brook LEA hired a part time Fire Official and Fire Inspector.

Today, the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department has remained an important part of community, and adapted to its ever-changing needs. The department has kept up to date with its rigs, equipment, and radio devices, as well as with volunteer training in fire safety and techniques. Due to the efforts of the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department, a Fire Prevention Bureau ordinance was introduced to the Township. Additionally, during Fire Prevention Week, firefighters have visited schools and educated children on fire safety for the past 29 years. After one hundred years, the Pine Brook Volunteer Fire Department continues its proud tradition of service, while maintaining a high level of professionalism and readiness for any emergencies that may arise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Pine Brook Fire Department as they celebrate their 100th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to join my colleagues from New Jersey in paying tribute to our late senior Senator, Frank R. Lautenberg.

For the past several days, America has been reintroduced to Senator Lautenberg, and it is a story worth repeating here.

He came from a family of working-class immigrants from Eastern Europe--Russia and Poland.

When he was 18, during the middle of World War II, Frank Lautenberg enlisted in the U.S. Army where he served with distinction in the Signal Corps.

He was very proud of his military service. In fact, when he passed last week, he was the last World War II veteran serving in the United States Senate.

When he came home from the European Theater, he attended Columbia on the GI Bill--just as so many other Americans did.

What distinguished him from many other returning soldiers is that through hard-work and perseverance he founded his own company. And under his leadership, that firm, grew into the largest computing company of its kind in the world.

So working his way from humble beginnings to a prosperous career as a chief executive in New Jersey's private sector, he lived the American Dream.

But Frank Lautenberg's true calling was public service and giving back to his community, our State, and our Nation throughout his life.

In this regard, New Jersey lost a tireless advocate on June 3.

For many years, we worked together as New Jersey's Appropriations team--looking out for our state's needs on Capitol Hill. I was proud to work with him on issues so important to the citizens of our state-- transportation, homeland security and open space. In fact, in his final months, we worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that New Jersey has the resources to recover from an historic storm.

Yes, we owe much to this dedicated public servant. We have lost a great fighter who lived a life from which we all could learn.

May the tributes and prayers of so many of his colleagues here today be a source of strength to his family.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price on behalf of the residents of our region: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the east coast.

Mention was made of disasters, and I want to thank the chair and all the committee members, and certainly the big chair, Chairman Rogers, but particularly the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee for their working with us on behalf of our residents who continue to suffer. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you and show our appreciation.

There were some tough decisions that had to be made, and we are especially grateful to the staff of both sides of the aisle that worked with us to make life a little more bearable for our residents. And since this is the first appropriations bill since Hurricane Sandy, I just want to express my appreciation.

Also, Madam Chairman, I come from a 9/11 State. This committee is very important to urban areas. In this bill are greater protections for the residents of major cities and metropolitan areas. I'd also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Carter and Mr. Price for making sure that different grants are there for first responders. If there are manmade disasters or any type of disasters, the funds are there.

I appreciate this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Cedar Grove Ambulance and Rescue Squad, located in Cedar Grove, Essex County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 75th Anniversary.

The need for a rescue squad in Cedar Grove was realized in 1938. When a resident of Cedar Grove was in need of immediate help, and the only rescue squad available was in the nearby Township of Verona. It was May, 1938, that a group of firemen formed the Cedar Grove Rescue Squad, with the express purpose of providing emergency medical care and rescue services to those in need. The Rescue Squad was based in Center Fire Company #1, and was the sole provider of emergency medical care to the residents of Cedar Grove for thirteen years.

In 1951, the Township of Cedar Grove faced a dramatic upsurge in emergency calls, causing eight Auxiliary Policemen and eight residents to form the Cedar Grove Ambulance Unit. The Unit was based out of the Municipal Building. In the following years, the Township continued to grow, as did the number of emergency calls. The need for more volunteers, vehicles, and space was patent. In 1962, the Ambulance Unit moved its headquarters to the intersection of Cedar Street and Ridge Road, and in 1965, the Rescue Squad moved to its headquarters at Pompton Avenue and Myrtle Avenue. The two organizations worked together to provide care and services to the residents of Cedar Grove, with the Rescue Squad handling on-scene work and the Ambulance Unit providing transportation to the hospital.

In the early eighties, new state regulations and the overwhelming amount of calls led to merger negotiations between the Rescue Squad and Ambulance Unit. In 1982, the merger resulted in the Cedar Grove Ambulance and Rescue Squad. Today, the squad has over sixty members that handle over 1,600 calls annually. They have three ambulances in operation, and a heavy-duty rescue truck equipped with the latest in rescue and medical equipment. The members, a remarkable group of men and women, remain dedicated to serving the residents of Cedar Grove, and providing the best care in emergency situations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Cedar Grove Ambulance and Rescue Squad as they celebrate their 75th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mental Health Association of Morris County; located in the Borough of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 60th Anniversary.

The Mental Health Association of Morris County is a local chapter of the New Jersey Division of the National Mental Health Association, now known as Mental Health America. In earlier days of mental health treatment, asylums often restrained the mentally ill with chains and shackles. With the advent of better understanding came more humane treatments, and the cruel practice was halted. In the early 1950s, Mental Health America issued a call to asylums across the country for their discarded fetters. On April 13, 1956, the McShane Bell Foundry in Baltimore, Maryland, recast these into the Mental Health Bell, to be a sign of hope for improving mental health and achieving victory over mental illnesses. The bell, now the symbol of Mental Health America, serves as a powerful reminder of the invisible chains of misunderstanding and discrimination that continue to bind people with mental illnesses.

The Mental Health Association of Morris County was incorporated in 1953, when a small number of people in recovery from mental illness and their families decided to bring the advocacy organization local, for a better mental health system of care. The mission of this organization is to promote mental health and to support and empower people in recovery from mental illness through effective services, education, and advocacy. Within the community of Morris County, the Mental Health Association provides services to those who are most devastated by mental illness, giving them hope for recovery. They employ peer workers who have gone through similar struggles to help coach the next generation of mentally ill. The organization aids those in need transition from homelessness to housing, and from psychiatric hospitals to the community. Additionally, the Mental Health Association of Morris County serves as advocates of community education, improvement of services, policies, and resources, and promotes self help.

The goal of independence for those suffering, both financially and in conducting their lives, is an important aspect of promoting wellness. Financial support and counseling allows mentally ill people to live independently in their permanent housing opportunities where they might otherwise end up in expensive institutional or jail facilities. Their Peer-to-

Peer Support Line, staffed by those recovering from mental illness, also provides cost-efficient access to counselors if the mentally ill person is suffering from a psychiatric emergency. These services reach over 3,000 people per year. The Mental Health Association of Morris County has a staff of 85, a volunteer Board of Directors, and over 100 volunteers working to achieve this mission, on a budget of only $6 million. They are a lead county agency in promoting recovery and wellness from people with mental illness and their families. They continue to embody a just and humane approach to promoting integration into a community in which all people with mental illness are accorded respect, dignity, and the opportunity to achieve their full potential, free from stigma and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Mental Health Association of Morris County as they celebrate their 60th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Montclair Ambulance Unit, located in the Township of Montclair, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 60th Anniversary.

In the early part of the 20th century, Emergency Medical Services were just beginning to organize formally. As populations increased, towns began to establish their own ambulance services, including the Township of Montclair. In December 1952, the first meeting of the Montclair Ambulance Unit took place, and appointed Lawrence W. Sanders as chairman. During that first meeting, trustees and the first officers were also appointed. Donald Miller was elected as Vice-President, Donald Hobart as Secretary, Fred Scharfenberg as Treasurer, and Chairman Sanders was elevated to President.

In the next six months, the new Montclair Ambulance Unit organized; formulating bylaws, obtaining a Cadillac Ambulance, and finding the necessary space and equipment. Finally, on June 20, 1953, the unit officially began operations with its first assignment, which was a discharge from Montclair Community Hospital. After nearly two years of operation, in March of 1955, the Trustees of Montclair Ambulance Unit began a search for their own headquarters to accommodate members and rigs. After nearly six months, in August of that same year, negotiations began for 69 Portland Place, a location strategically situated close to Valley Road and Bloomfield Avenue. By January of 1956, Gabriel Aiello signed over the deed and gave the Montclair Ambulance Unit its first official home. Prior to this the unit had been operating out of the Red Cross building on Park Street, and storing the ambulance at the Arthur K. Brown Funeral Home.

By 1958, the Montclair Ambulance Unit had responded to 2,620 requests for service, had an active membership of fifty-seven men and six women, and several administrative volunteers from the Junior League who worked in the office and initiated the ``phone tree'' when requests came in. With the impending retirement of Montclair Ambulance Unit's first Captain, Captain Maclachlan, the trustees decided to create a paid position to handle the day-to-day business operations. In 1962, after an extensive search, the unit contracted John Rankin for this role. A new Captain, R. Stan Berry, was elected by the active members. Again in 1964, a new Director was named; a retired Montclair Police Officer Frederick ``Bud'' Kupper.

The year 1970 marked another milestone year for the Montclair Ambulance Unit, as they relocated their headquarters to what is now 86 Valley Road. This location served the unit for the next 35 years. By 2005, the Montclair ambulance unit sold the Valley Road building, and moved to the old Walnut Street Firehouse, renovated and provided at a nominal rate by the Township of Montclair. The proceeds from the sale helped to finance operations, the maintenance of the ambulance fleet and the cost of equipment, and the staff of highly trained EMTs. Since the first meeting in 1952, the Montclair Ambulance Unit has responded to over 175,000 requests for service, and overcome the challenges of lack of volunteerism, higher standards of training for staff, and the changes in the economic, political, and social world. The unit now has an around the clock, career staff whose training covers the entire range of EMS. Additionally, they follow an effective, new organization model consistent with other public safety entities. They have added a Chief and Deputy Chief of Operations, a full time Lieutenant, two part time Sergeants, and a Special Events Coordinator.

In addition to responding to medical emergencies and transportations, the Montclair Ambulance Unit has always also responded to all fires in Montclair to aid the Montclair Fire Department while simultaneously providing mutual aid to surrounding towns, and, post 9/11, provided service to New York City. In 2012, the Unit became a New Jersey EMS Task Force agency, which allows it to be requested for aid in any declared emergency in New Jersey or across state lines, should the need arise. Most recently, they provided aid following Superstorm Sandy. Over the years the Montclair Ambulance Unit has improved and expanded services, and gone above and beyond expectations in the community. Currently, the Montclair Ambulance Unit operates a fleet of four Basic Life Support Ambulances licensed by the New Jersey Department of Health, and three support vehicles, including two supervisor/first response vehicles, and a Special Operations vehicle provided by the Department of Homeland Security. They continue to provide professional, responsive, patient-first care, and are dedicated to being a community based, industry leading, emergency medical service organization.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Montclair Ambulance Unit as they celebrate their 60th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Wayne Public Library, located in the Township of Wayne, Passaic

County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 90th Anniversary.

The Wayne Public Library was established in December, 1922, after a discussion during a meeting of the Mountain View Parent Teacher Association with Mrs. Grace Freeman, who would become the President. The issue of the need for a public library was raised, and fundraising efforts began. By June of 1923, after canvassing the neighborhood and hosting a tag day, $1,500 was raised, and 200 books donated. Due to these efforts, on July 24, 1923, the new Mountain View Library and Preakness Library officially opened.

As Wayne grew, and the collections of the libraries increased, regulation and further organization was needed. In 1947, the citizens of the Township of Wayne voted to establish an ``American Free Public Library, governed by state laws which provided for a seven member Board of Trustees including the mayor of the town and the Superintendent of Schools.'' This governing body of the library systems in Wayne still operates today.

This Board of Trustees and a Library Improvement Association recognized the need for additional space to accommodate the collections, as well as to provide other locations to better serve Wayne residents. On November 6, 1962, they were able to facilitate the passing of a referendum to provide funds for a new central library building. They acquired a lot on Nellis Drive, next to the Town Hall, which allowed for an 11,000 square foot library, and on February 8, 1964, the groundbreaking and building began. A few years later, in 1967, a bookmobile was purchased to serve the Wayne neighborhoods. This held approximately 4,000 books, and was in service for nearly twenty years.

Over the next fifteen years, the three branches of the Wayne libraries underwent changes to further accommodate the residents and expanding collections. With the main library crowded with over 700,000 volumes, in 1972, an extra 16,000 square feet were added. The new Preakness Branch was completed six years later, and in 1980, the Mountain View Branch was also renovated, though it would close twelve years later. In the latter 1990s, the Wayne Public Library was remodeled, and held it's grand opening on June 11, 2000.

The Wayne Public Library branches are home to a variety of programs. Their spacious meeting rooms are used for a variety of purposes, including music, tutoring, and reading programs, as well as presentations and groups for children and young adults. For adults, book discussion groups, computer, English language, art classes, and writing groups are all available. The meeting rooms are also used by other groups, such as the annual ballet performance for children by the McKenna School of Dance. The Wayne Public Library also hosts movie nights and viewings for all three age groups at both locations. The library offers to display artwork from the Township of Wayne as well.

The celebration of the Wayne Public Library's 90th Anniversary, on April 20, 2013, includes a Wine Tasting and Art Auction Event, featuring hors d'oeuvres, desserts, door prizes, a raffle, and live music. The event is sponsored by the Friends of the Wayne Public Library.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Wayne Public Library as they celebrate their 90th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the organization Family Service of Morris County, located in Morristown, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 200th Anniversary.

The organization was originally formed in Morristown in 1813 as the Female Charitable Society and was then comprised of only seventeen volunteer members from the parish of Presbyterian Church, who sought to serve women and children in need for the first one hundred years of its existence. These volunteers began by providing service to the ``deserving poor'' of Morristown, whose needs were left unfulfilled by New Jersey's inadequate Poor Laws. This included many women and children left behind by male victims to the War of 1812. However, over the next one hundred years the needs of the community changed.

For the centennial celebration in 1913, the Female Charitable Society changed their name to the Bureau of Social Services, and expanded their services to males, as well as the entirety of Morris County. The organization worked to centralize various charitable groups, and over the coming years adapted to not only developments in social work, but also to the ever-changing dynamics of families and their needs.

In 1943, the agency merged with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, becoming Family and Children's Service of Morris County, and in 1947 adopted its current name, Family Service of Morris County.

Today, what was once a seventeen member female-oriented organization now employs one hundred professionals, four hundred volunteers, and aids about seven thousand people per year. The Family Service of Morris County still adheres to the same mission as they did two hundred years ago--``to strengthen the community by empowering individuals and families to meet and overcome life's challenges.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Family Service of Morris County, their Board Members, professional staff and so many volunteers, as they celebrate their Bicentennial Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mount Freedom Jewish Center, located in Township of Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 90th anniversary.

Founded by a group of residents as an orthodox synagogue in 1923, Mount Freedom Jewish Center served the summer and bungalow communities of Morris County. Mount Freedom Jewish Center continued to grow with the population of Morris County, and eventually became a year-round synagogue. The building has been renovated several times to accommodate the ever-growing population, but the walls of the original structure remain a part of the center.

The only synagogue in Randolph, Mount Freedom Jewish Center serves the diverse community of Morris County not only as a house of worship, but also a place of learning, a source of caring, and an outlet for social enjoyment. The center has an active Hebrew School for grades one through eight, as well as active religious and social programs and groups. The Mount Freedom Jewish Center serves all residents of Morris County through interfaith collaborations with other houses of worship, providing programs for young adults with special needs, as well as opening its doors to those in need. Additionally, the center also has the only Jewish Cemetery in Randolph.

The Mount Freedom Jewish Center has planned a year of festivities in celebration of its 90th anniversary. Throughout the year, there have been, and will be, special services, programs and speakers, and special dinners. The year of festivities will culminate with a 90th Anniversary Gala in December 2013 to celebrate the contributions the center has made to the community. The center looks to start off their 10th decade of vision and dedication to enriching the lives of congregants and the larger community by providing an inviting environment for spiritual, educational and social interaction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Mount Freedom Jewish Center as they celebrate their 90th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Wanaque First Aid Squad, located in the Borough of Wanaque, Passaic County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary.

Before the existence of the Wanaque First Aid Squad, emergency medical services were provided to the borough by the Pompton Lakes First Aid Squad, located in the adjacent municipality. With the aim of providing better coverage to Wanaque, a group of residents petitioned the Mayor and Borough Council to form their own squad in 1970. Then Mayor Frank Longo appointed Councilman Samuel Liotti to serve as a liaison to the group and monitor its progress, and in October 1971, prospective members began training with the Ringwood, New Jersey Ambulance Corps. The first officers appointed by the Wanaque First Aid Squad were President Dennis Gallagher, Vice President Thomas Jones, Secretary Rosemary Jenkins, and Captain Robert Brown.

The Wanaque First Aid Squad was incorporated on June 21, 1972, due to the efforts of founding members Martin Carrigan III, Joseph Cisco, Arnold Cohen, Raymond Ernst, and David Sisco. The seventeen new members then began probationary training with the Ringwood and Pompton Lakes Squads, while they worked to build up their training and the capabilities of the new Wanaque First Aid Squad. The members wrote to other area squads seeking equipment donations, and were able to meet most of their needs. Later in the year, the squad obtained two aged Cadillac Ambulances, and in December, found a property on Melrose Avenue for their headquarters. While the new building was being completed, the squad operated out of a trailer set up behind the Borough Hall on Ringwood Avenue.

The Wanaque First Aid Squad officially began to operate at midnight, April 1, 1973. They held a dinner at a local restaurant to celebrate, and there they chose the names for the first premier, duty crew from a hat. Just before midnight, David Brolema, David Doughty, Joseph Carrigan, and Robert Jordon left to start the first shift of the Wanaque First Aid Squad. The squad proved their importance quickly, as the first use of the rigs was the following day, April 2, and the first emergency call came on April 3.

The official headquarters was completed and dedicated on May 26, 1974, and within five years, a large hall was added, thanks to the donations of the Wanaque Lion's Club. Today, the hall is open for use for public fundraisers and private events, and every Thursday night, it is used to host the Wanaque First

Aid Auxiliary Bingo Night, which provides the main source of fundraising for the squad. The Auxiliary handles most of the fundraising efforts for the Wanaque First Aid Squad, as the job is very demanding. There are 14 EMTs, who have met the 270 hour certification requirements, and six drivers who also must go through basic training. They cover the Wanaque area 24 hours a day, five days a week, and alternate weekend coverage with Pompton Lakes, to help provide each squad with weekend relief. In the year of 2012, the Wanaque First Aid Squad answered to 1,008 calls and dedicated 11,378 volunteer hours, for an average of 569 hours per member. The squad plans to celebrate their 40th year with the arrival of a new 2013 Ford E-450 ambulance, which will replace their old rig that will be auctioned off.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Wanaque First Aid Squad as they celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Morristown National Historical Park, located in Morristown, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 80th anniversary.

As America's first national historical park, Morristown National Historical Park was founded on March 2, 1933 by legislation signed by President Herbert Hoover. Though he was responsible for the creation of the park, it was actually under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration that the Washington's Headquarters Museum was built. Along with the museum, Morristown National Historical Park is comprised of three different areas; Washington's Headquarters, Jockey Hollow, and Fort Nonsense. It was during the two critical winters of the Revolutionary War, 1777 and 1779-90, that these areas in Morristown sheltered the encampments of the Continental Army. Washington chose Morristown due to its strategic location, and made the Ford Mansion his headquarters.

Within Washington's Headquarters, there are two locations. The Historic Ford Mansion is an original 18th Century structure that was built between 1772-74, and is still furnished in period style. This location served as General Washington's military headquarters for six months during the winter of 1779-80. Nearby is the 1930's Washington's Headquarters Museum, which features exhibit galleries for visitors, as well as an expansive archive of important United States and world history items.

The Jockey Hollow area provides many different attractions for visitors. As of 1975, there is a Visitor Center as to direct and aid guests, and well as provide small displays. The Historic Wick House, built around 1750, is a farmhouse that served as the 1779-80 military headquarters for Major General Arthur St. Clair of the Continental Army. Today, demonstrations of period cooking and craft are offered by staff in costume. Henry Wick's 1,400 acre farm initially had attracted Washington's army due to the forest on the property, which provided fuel and building supplies. Jockey Hollow also offers the Pennsylvania Line, which consists of five reproduction-Continental Army soldier huts. There are also trails that were once used by the armies, known as the New York Brigade area and the New Jersey Brigade areas. These trails cross the property of the Cross Estate Gardens.

The Fort Nonsense area contains the remains of an earthwork fortification built by Washington's troops. The construction was ordered so that the fort served as a guardhouse of the main roads and storehouses, as well as an area to retreat to in the event of a British

attack. By the 1790s the hill was called Fort Nonsense, as a legend had grown that Washington ordered the construction as a means to keep his troops busy.

The historic landscapes, structures, objects, and archeological and natural resources at Morristown are tangible links to our nation's history. The vast collection in the Morristown National Historical Park library and archives reflect the convergence of two collections. With the founding of the park, they acquired the collection of the Washington Association of New Jersey. Later, in 1955, collector Lloyd W. Smith bequeathed his immense collection to the park, enabling them to boast a library collection of nearly 50,000 volumes, and an archive of nearly 250,000 manuscripts, journals, diaries, account books, letter books, military orderly books, and other Revolutionary War related documents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Morristown National Historical Park as it celebrates its 80th anniversary.