Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, every year, more high school seniors from the 11th Congressional District trade in varsity jackets for navy pea coats, Air Force flight suits, and Army brass buckles than most other districts in the country. But this is nothing new--our area has repeatedly sent an above average portion of its sons and daughters to the nation's military academies for decades.

This fact should not come as a surprise. The educational excellence of area schools is well known and has long been a magnet for families looking for the best environment in which to raise their children. Our graduates are skilled not only in mathematics, science, and social studies, but also have solid backgrounds in sports, debate teams, and other extracurricular activities. This diverse upbringing makes military academy recruiters sit up and take note--indeed, many recruiters know our towns and schools by name.

Since the 1830's, Members of Congress have enjoyed meeting, talking with, and nominating these superb young people to our military academies. But how did this process evolve? In 1843, when West Point was the sole academy, Congress ratified the nominating process and became directly involved in the makeup of our military's leadership. This was not an act of an imperial Congress bent on controlling every aspect of Government.

Rather, the procedure still used today was, and is, a further check and balance in our democracy. It was originally designed to weaken and divide political coloration in the officer corps, provide geographical balance to our armed services, and to make the officer corps more resilient to unfettered nepotism and handicapped European armies.

In 1854, Representative Gerritt Smith of New York added a new component to the academy nomination process--the academy review board. This was the first time a Member of Congress appointed prominent citizens from his district to screen applicants and assist with the serious duty of nominating candidates for academy admission. Today, I am honored to continue this wise tradition in my service to the 11th Congressional District.

The Academy Review Board is composed of six local citizens, many of whom are veterans, who have shown exemplary service to New Jersey, to their communities, and to the continued excellence of education in our area. Though from diverse backgrounds and professions, they all share a common dedication that the best qualified and motivated graduates attend our academies. And, as true for most volunteer panels, their service goes largely unnoticed.

I would like to take a moment to recognize these men and women and thank them publicly for participating in this important panel. Being on the board requires hard work and an objective mind. Members have the responsibility of interviewing upwards of 50 outstanding high school seniors every year in the academy review process.

The nomination process follows a general timetable. High school seniors mail personal information directly to the Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the Merchant Marine Academy once they become interested in attending. Information includes academic achievement, college entry test scores, and other activities. At this time, they also inform my office of their desire to be nominated.

The academies then assess the applicants, rank them based on the data supplied, and return the files to my office with their notations. In late November, our Academy Review Board interviews all of the applicants over the course of 2 days. They assess a student's qualifications and analyze character, desire to serve, and other talents that may be hidden on paper.

This year the board interviewed over 40 applicants. Nominations included 10 to the Naval Academy, 14 to the Military Academy, 4 to the Merchant Marine Academy and 7 to the Air Force Academy--the Coast Guard Academy does not use the Congressional nomination process. The recommendations are then forwarded to the academies by January 31st, where recruiters reviewed files and notified applicants and my office of their final decision on admission.

As these highly motivated and talented young men and women go through the academy nominating process, never let us forget the sacrifice they are preparing to make: to defend our country and protect our citizens. This holds especially true at a time when our nation is fighting the war against terrorism. Whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other hot spots around the world, no doubt we are constantly reminded that wars are fought by the young. And, while our military missions are both important and dangerous, it is reassuring to know that we continue to put America's best and brightest in command.

Academy Nominees for 2005

11th Congressional District New Jersey:

Air Force Academy--David J. Dobrosky, Mountain Lakes,

Mountain Lakes H.S.; Oliver J. Kotelnicki, Bridgewater,

Bridgewater-Raritan H.S.; Benjamin K. Joelson, Far Hills,

Morristown-Beard School; Brian J. Monga, Rockaway, Morris

Knolls H.S.; Scott N. Pierson, Parsippany, Parsippany Hills

H.S.; Alexander C. Roosma, Bloomingdale, Butler H.S.; Sean C.

Schiess, Flanders, Mount Olive H.S.

Merchant Marine--Kurt T. Bethman, Sparta, Sparta H.S.;

Derek W. Day, Madison, Newark Academy; Jonathon M. Dobbins,

Randolph, Randolph H.S.; Matthew F. Poloniak, Sparta, Sparta

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the First Presbyterian Church of Succasunna in the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, a vibrant community I am proud to represent. On April 29, 2006, the good citizens of Succasunna will celebrate the First Presbyterian Church's 250th anniversary.

The congregation first organized in 1756. In 1760, their first building was erected and measured approximately 36 by 40 feet in size, had plain seats, an unfinished floor and no ceiling. In fact, it wasn't until 1768 that the congregation was strong enough to extend a call for a full-time pastor, Reverend William Woodhull, whom they shared with a congregation in Chester, New Jersey for a salary of 400. The church building was used during the Revolutionary War for barracks, for a hospital, and to keep material dry. It is rumored that George Washington visited hospitalized troops there. When the new Centennial Bell for Independence Hall in Philadelphia was being cast, the church contributed one of the cannons being stored there for bell metal.

On May 3, 1817, the church incorporated a Board of Trustees as ``The Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Suckasunny Plains.''

In 1853, the congregation tore down the original building and raised a new one in the fall of the same year. Amongst other relics, they placed a brief history of the church, a list of the officers and members at that time, certain newspapers, and a bullet found in removing the old building bearing the date in etching July 4, 1776 within the cornerstone of the new church. The first service in this new building was the funeral for Mahlon Dickerson, a distinguished native son, who had been judge, general, Governor of New Jersey, Member of Congress, and Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of President Jackson. He was responsible for bringing President Martin Van Buren to worship there.

The building, now known as the Chapel, was erected in the memory of Eliza Platt Stoddard, a step-daughter to then Reverend Dr. Elijah W. Stoddard. In 1957, a committee planned fundraising for a new pipe organ and a major expansion project for what is now known as Fellowship Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the First Presbyterian Church of Succasunna on the celebration of its 250 years serving Morris County.

Mr. Speaker, recent newspaper articles, television news reports, debates on the floor of the U.S. House and Senate, and even dinner time conversations this holiday season have been dominated by discussions about the war against terrorism in Iraq.

Two and a half years removed from the beginning of this war, the stakes for victory remain high. It is important for all Americans, whether they support the war or not, to understand the implications of why we went there; what we are there to achieve; and what the consequences would be if we agreed to an artificial timetable to withdraw our troops. Because we continue to face both great difficulties and great opportunities in Iraq, it is even more important that all Americans absolutely recognize what the future of Iraq means to our security here at home and the future of the Middle East!

My current reading of the Iraq debate is that some war critics, who originally supported the war, have lately been trying to revise or rewrite the history of how Iraq became the central front in the war on terrorism. Some of this is genuine, principled opposition to war. Some of it is personal animosity toward the President. Whatever the reason, we need to separate the two. As some have said, ``hate the war, love the warfighter.''

To understand why we are there we do not have to look much further than what some critics said before the war and what they are saying now.

In 1998, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology.'' Seven years later, she says Saddam's weapons were ``not an imminent threat to the United States or a cause for war.''

In 2002, Senator Hillary Clinton said Saddam ``has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists.'' Now she claims there were ``false assurances, faulty evidence'' for war, but still hesitates to embrace calls for immediate withdrawal.

Even former President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam's ``ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat.'' Yet, now he says the war was ``a big mistake,'' but, like his spouse, warns of the danger of a premature withdrawal.

Unlike what Iraqis endured under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, Americans are afforded the right to voice their concerns and state their opinions just as these elected officials and other citizens have done. However, it is important we understand the facts before more judgments and accusations are made.

Saddam Hussein reigned through terror, sponsored terror, and massacred innocent Iraqis with chemical weapons. He invaded his Kuwaiti neighbors and violated more than a dozen U.N. resolutions. His armed forces shot at U.S. and British pilots for the ten years they patrolled the U.N.-imposed ``No Fly Zones'' as they protected the Iraqi people from his brutality. And in the words of weapons inspector Dr. David Kay: Saddam had the ``intent'' and ``capabilities'' to develop weapons of mass destruction.

I have never regretted voting to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam from power. While I agree with Senator John McCain that mistakes have been made and some pre-war intelligence was unintentionally flawed, we cannot overlook positive developments in Iraq. I am convinced, however, that the progress we have made could be lost if we prematurely withdraw our troops before the Iraqi people are fully capable of governing and securing their own country.

The War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is the defining challenge of our generation, whether some ``war opponents'' like it or not. Osama Bin Laden's deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be ``the place for the greatest battle,'' where he hopes to ``expel the Americans'' and then spread ``the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' Such statements reaffirm why withdrawing our troops according to an artificial political timetable would be detrimental to the future of Iraq, our own national security, and could actually embolden those who hate our way of life.

Iraq continues to strengthen its security forces, but not all of their military battalions are ready to operate independent of coalition troops. Our troops, and those of our coalition allies, are still needed in Iraq and we need to stand firm in the face of the terrorists. If we

leave prematurely, jihadists and terrorists will interpret our withdrawal as total victory and use that opportunity to turn Iraq into a springboard for future attacks closer to our shores. We know what these terrorists are capable of. Here in New Jersey, we don't need to be reminded of 9/11, nor have we forgotten terrorist attacks in Bali, London, Madrid, Thailand, Bangladesh, Jordan, Israel, and the discovery of cells in Belgium and a host of countries around the world.

We also have a responsibility to 28 million Iraqis who, after decades of abuse and torture by Saddam, yearn to be free and deserve a chance for prosperity and stability. We pledged to guide the Iraqi people through the difficult steps of constituting a new government, strengthening the Iraqi Army, and laying the ground work for free elections. But it would be incredibly dangerous if we allowed threats from Bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any of the insurgency to influence our foreign policy and ``break our promise'' to the Iraqi people. Drawing down our forces in Iraq should be based strictly on the progress being made by the Iraqi government to fully secure their own country and the judgment of our military generals on the ground over there.

For our troops to come home safely, our strategy for victory depends significantly on more Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, being trained, equipped, and ready to ``lead the fight'' for securing their own country. American military leaders in Iraq estimate that 210,400 Iraqi forces are currently fighting to defend Iraq. More than 80 battalions are fighting alongside coalition troops while nearly 40 others, including four in Baghdad, are independently policing and controlling areas of Iraq. Despite that innocent Iraqis continue to be a target of suicide bombers, more than 50,000 Iraqi police have completed basic training courses and ISF recruitment remains high. With all due respect to media reports, most of the insurgency only exists in four of 18 provinces in Iraq, a country the size of California.

Despite continued terrorists attacks, car bombings, beheadings, and kidnappings, the terrorists have not achieved their goals. In fact, 2005 has been a watershed year for democracy in Iraq. In January, the world watched as Iraqis defied terrorist threats by going to the polls and casting their votes for self-determination. Eight million Iraqis went to the voting booth and took a stand against terror by voting for an interim National Assembly. In October, almost 10 million participated in an Iraqi referendum to approve a national constitution that--for the first time ever--guarantees them basic freedoms, rights and protections under law, regardless of their gender, religion, or ethnic origin. And on December 15 even more Iraqis cast their votes for a permanent, full-time government.

In addition to the political and security strategy in Iraq, we must also continue to focus on the economic and reconstruction effort. While at times slow, critical infrastructure in Iraq continues to be restored and rebuilt to meet the increasing demand and need of the country's growing economy. The Army Corps of Engineers and many of our soldiers and Marines, working alongside Iraqis, the USAID and other international agencies, are helping Iraq build schools, modernize water and sewage projects, and open new fire and police stations. Approximately 80,000 children are attending Iraq's 3,400 schools. After years of neglect, more than 15,000 Iraqi homes have been connected to the Baghdad water system. And more Iraqi women are receiving better health care thanks to the construction of a new 260-bed maternity hospital in Mosul.

These are strong signs of progress in Iraq--none of which would have been possible without the service, sacrifice, and strong morale of U.S. and coalition forces. Unfortunately, such stories are not always being told by the media. Iraqis want to be free, and thanks to the support of our service men and women, they are taking steps each and every day to reach their goal.

Mr. Speaker, victory will not be accomplished overnight. On the contrary, the Iraqis still need our help to meet their political and security objectives. Our work in Iraq remains dangerous and difficult but we must meet the challenges of this new kind of war. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our soldiers by doing whatever it takes to protect our nation and prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, calling for the immediate withdrawal or even a phased, detailed plan for withdrawal from Iraq is a recipe for absolute disaster. It is the wrong message for our soldiers and marines who are truly doing the work of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frankly, I am concerned, as we all should be, that such talk will only embolden the terrorists and demoralize our warfighters, those who literally put their lives on the line each and every day. Domestic politics should not trump our promises to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that we would be loyal to their aspirations for freedom, that we would see them through the difficult steps of constituting new governments and laying the groundwork for free elections.

Our only exit strategy from Iraq should be victory. Anything less than that virtually guarantees the next battleground may be closer to home. We need to support our troops, these young troops. We cannot cut their feet out from underneath them. They need our support, and they need it tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and oppose the underlying resolution.

Calling for an immediate withdrawal, or even a detailed planned phased withdrawal, from Iraq is a recipe for disaster, a dangerous defense policy, the wrong message for our soldiers and Marines who are truly doing the `work of freedom.'

Frankly, I am concerned that such talk will only embolden the terrorists and demoralize our warfighters--those who put their lives on the line, literally every day.

Domestic politics should not trump our promises to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that we would be loyal to their aspirations for freedom--that we would see them through

the difficult steps of constituting a new government, laying the groundwork for free elections.

Our only `exit strategy' from Iraq should be victory. Anything less than that virtually guarantees the next battleground may be closer to home!''

Mr. Speaker, we have to choose where we want to fight the global war on terrorism--in Iraq and Afghanistan or on Main Street in America.

And we must never forget that it is our brave young warfighters--men and women of the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force--who are taking the fight to the terrorists overseas!

They are all volunteers--doing the unheralded work of rebuilding shattered nations.

If not for their service, Saddam Hussein would still be in power with all his trappings--the secret police, the torture chambers, the mass graveyards. God bless these young people.

If not for their service, Iraq would be a nation engulfed in civil war or in the hands of fanatical terrorists.

The targets of these terrorists are more often than not other Muslims--worshippers at Friday prayers inside their mosque slaughtered by suicide bombers--today--and moderate Muslims who reject their extremist views and work to provide for their families, run businesses or serve in the government. Indeed, the terrorists' victims include thousands of Muslims in Iraq--many killed simply because they've chosen to be free.

Mr. Speaker, with our support, the Iraqis have made great progress. They established an interim government. They elected members of a constitutional conference. They've drafted a constitution and conducted a referendum to endorse that constitution. And in 3 weeks, they will hold a full-fledged parliamentary election.

None of this would have been possible without the contribution of our young warfighters.

Of course, at times like these, we are reminded that freedom is not free. America has paid a heavy price.

Many of us visit soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Bethesda Naval Medical Center on a regular basis. Many of us have attended painful funerals and comforted grieving families. Time and again, those families of wounded soldiers speak proudly of their loved ones' service in Iraq--their humanitarian efforts to protect the innocent, rebuild schools and hospitals, repair the infrastructure of a civil society.

Let's support our troops--and their families. And let's applaud their service and heroism.

I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise In strong support of the Deficit Reduction Act.

In recent weeks, much public and media focus has been placed on one potential provision in this legislation that called for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I respect all those who have called my office and otherwise expressed their opinion about this important issue.

While I am well aware of the ``pros'' and ``cons'' of domestic drilling, I regret that this ``hot button'' issue has allowed some to lose focus on the basic legislation before Congress: how to reduce the federal budget deficit. This debate should be about the tough choices we are making to reduce the deficit.

Over the past several years, our fiscal priorities have reflected a historic convergence of events: a recession that began in the year 2000; the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the need to seriously upgrade security for our homeland; a multi-front war against terrorism, including Iraq and Afghanistan; AND natural disasters in South Asia and along our Gulf Coast.

At the same time, we have maintained a commitment to strengthening our economy. As a result, millions of new jobs have been created, unemployment is down, and Americans have more money in their pockets. Still, we can--and must--do better. And I am pleased that this Congress is serious about making our government more efficient.

The Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution calls for significant reductions in federal spending. This year, the House Appropriations Committee on which I serve, passed all of its FY 2006 spending bills by July 4th--on time and under budget--holding domestic discretionary spending below last year's levels for the first time in a generation. Further, the committee eliminated 98 programs for a savings of $4.3 billion.

The Deficit Reduction Act mandates more restraint and less spending. By slowing the growth of spending and reforming and eliminating wasteful programs, the House is reducing the deficit.

The Deficit Reduction Act provides $50 billion in budget savings over the next five years. And for those who claim this goes too far, let's be clear that this represents just one half of one percent of the $7.8 trillion in ``entitlement spending'' anticipated over the next five years. If American families are making sacrifices and ``tightening belts,'' the federal government can too.

Clearly, some are also concerned with the form and size of some of the budget reforms in Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, food stamps, and other programs. In reality, the Deficit Reduction Act takes great care to protect our most vulnerable citizens while continuing to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent as wisely and efficiently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the budget decisions we make today are tough but they are also long overdue. The hardworking American taxpayers are watching. They want us to put this federal government on a ``crash diet.''

The Deficit Reduction Act is a necessary step toward renewed fiscal responsibility, and it deserves the House's full support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report.

First, let me commend Chairman Dave Hobson and Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for their hard work on this Conference report.

In a year of fiscal constraint, extraordinary costs due to natural disasters, they have produced an excellent bill that addresses our national priorities and a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation.

Katrina

No policy discussion about the Corps of Engineers can take place in this body without the looming shadow of Hurricane Katrina and its huge devastation.

This historic storm--encompassing 90,000 square miles in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama--raised issues that the Corps and the Congress must consider in the months ahead as we look to rebuild the Gulf Region and protect others susceptible to same kind of natural disaster.

Let's be blunt. A Katrina could--and will--happen again and we must heed its ``lessons learned.''

In the near term, we must be a careful steward of the taxpayers' dollars.

In the long--term, Congress needs to revisit how we prioritize ongoing Corps water infrastructure projects in a way that allows flood control, navigation, beach erosion to be completed once they are begun.

The Coast

The Army Corps of Engineers keeps our waterways open for business, prevents our communities from flooding and our beaches from eroding.

In New Jersey alone, the Army Corps budget helps keep the 127 miles of New Jersey coastline open to visitors from across the country. Serving as one of New Jersey's greatest attractions, our beaches generate over 30 billion dollars for our State's economy each year, while providing over 800,000 people with jobs. This bill provides $71 million dollars for beach preservation and restoration.

Port

One of the most important Army Corps projects is the Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening. For the third year in a row, President Bush's budget message recognized the dredging of this port as a national priority and it called for it to be one of five national navigational projects.

It goes without saying that projects like the Port drive our national economy. The Port is a national asset. As the largest port in the northeast and a leading job center for the New Jersey/New York Metropolitan Region, we must continue to focus our efforts on deepening its major navigation channels so that the port is able to meet the 21st Century needs of our economy.

floods

Of course, the importance of the Army Corps budget is not limited to just navigational projects. In an effort to protect New Jerseyans, their homes, and their businesses from the destruction and devastation of flooding, this bill also provides the framework and the funding to purchase wetlands for natural storage areas, and to work with the local governments across northern New Jersey to develop long-term solutions to re-occurring floods. In New Jersey this means that important corps initiatives like the Jackson Brook Flood Control project in my own district and the ongoing acquisition of wetlands critical for the preservation of flood storage areas, among several other critical local projects have the funding to remain on track.

energy

Mr. Speaker, our country continues to benefit from advances in science, technology and engineering. We've discovered the potential for fusion energy, advanced renewable energy, and improved energy efficiency. Through cutting edge research and the development of these programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, we are rapidly advancing our scientific knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported funding for renewable energy sources. The Committee's investment of $1.2 billion in renewable energy resources will be integral to creating alternative energy solutions for our nation. The Department of Energy is pursuing other new technologies to meet future energy and environmental needs. These technologies will change how we use and produce energy.

I am pleased that year after year this Committee continues to recognize the incredible potential of fusion energy by providing a $30 million increase in funding for a total of $296 million in funding for the program--which will advance the vital work of the domestic fusion community to prosper at sites such as New Jersey's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

The money in this bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy will fund continuing improvements in technology for programs I strongly support like hydro-electricity, wind and solar power. Since FY2000, the U.S. Congress, through this committee has invested over $3 billion in renewable energy.

The Chairman and his staff have worked extremely hard to craft a good bill. Kevin Cook and his team deserve a lot of credit. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Morris Habitat for Humanity of New Jersey, a vibrant organization I am proud to represent. On October 29, 2005 the Board of Directors celebrates its Twentieth Anniversary.

Through both volunteer labor and donations of money and materials, Morris Habitat for Humanity builds and rehabilitates houses in partnership with families in need. Hundreds of volunteers and partner families have allowed Morris Habitat for Humanity to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to low income families. There is no profit added to the sale price of the home and mortgage payments are returned to a revolving fund that is used to build more houses.

Morris Habitat for Humanity was formed in 1985 when a group of local residents traveled to New York City to hear former President Jimmy Carter and Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat for Humanity International, speak at the first Jimmy Carter Work Project. The group returned and incorporated Morris Habitat for Humanity as a charitable nonprofit that same year, attaining, affiliate status in 1986.

Since its formation, Morris Habitat for Humanity has completed 26 homes in seven municipalities throughout the 11th Congressional District. The hard work and efforts donated by private corporations, non-profit organizations, local governing officials, schools, and citizens with whom Morris Habitat has built partnerships have contributed to the benefit of more than 110 individuals of which 70 are children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of Morris Habitat for Humanity on the celebration of its 20 years of service to the Morris County area. Special praise is due to their dedicated staff and active volunteers who work cooperatively to provide affordable housing to families in need.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 6 of 2002, before a commemorative joint meeting of Congress at Federal Hall in New York City, the then poet laureate of the United States, Billy Collins, dedicated the following poem to the victims and survivors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The poem was called ``The Names,'' and I would like to read it:

``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 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 the 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 lifts 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. Speaker, today to honor the Lake Hopatcong Historical Society, in my Congressional District. The Historical Society is celebrating fifty years of protecting documents and artifacts for the community and promoting education and historic preservation.

The actual creation of the Lake Hopatcong Historical Society occurred on August 10, 1955, at the Langdon Arms Restaurant with eight people in attendance. From the beginning, the members' goal was to establish a museum for the lake.

From the original eight individuals who attended the first meeting in 1955, the society grew to 150 members by the time the museum opened in 1965. In the early 1960s the State of New Jersey moved forward with plans for a new administration building at Hopatcong State Park. The park was on land which was previously owned by the Morris Canal and Banking Company. When the canal was abandoned in the 1920s, the 98 acres around the Lake Hopatcong dam were set aside as a state park.

Today, with nearly 800 members, the organization continues to follow its mission ``to collect, house, and preserve artifacts and documents relating to the civil, political, social and general history of Lake Hopatcong and to encourage the education and dissemination of information about Lake Hopatcong's history.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Lake Hopatcong Historical Society, its trustees and all of its outstanding members and volunteers, upon celebrating its 50th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Somerville Central Hook & Ladder Company, in the Borough of Somerville, New Jersey, a patriotic community that I am proud to represent! On August 27, 2005, the good citizens of Somerville will celebrate the Hook & Ladder Company's One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Anniversary with special festivities.

For one hundred and twenty-five years, the Somerville Central Hook & Ladder Company has been protecting and serving the residents of their community. In celebration of their anniversary, festivities will include an apparatus judging contest during which invited neighboring fire companies will show off their rigs for a trophy prize. They will also introduce a new truck, the newest addition to their company.

The Hook & Ladder Company was created when, in the summer of 1880, several members of the Somerville Engine Company #1 recognized the need for a hook and ladder truck. They resigned from the Engine Company, and with several other volunteers created the Central Hook & Ladder Company. Funds for the purchase of their three-story brick building were raised by using their team, who refer to themselves as ``Hooks,'' and a dump truck to collect garbage in town at the cost of 25 cents a week per customer. The Division Street Building was built in 1902, to house the hand-drawn ``Wonder'' fire truck. In 1909, the company upgraded to a horse-drawn Seagrave truck.

Currently the Central Hook & Ladder Company is led by Deputy Chief Todd Starner and has about 50 members of which about a dozen are second generation or more Central Hook & Ladder families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the volunteers of the Somerville Central Hook & Ladder Company on the celebration of 125 years of a rich history in the protection of one of New Jersey's finest municipalities!

Mr. Speaker, had I been present on Monday, July 18 and Tuesday, July 19, I would have voted ``aye'' on: Monday's Rollcall vote #380--Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass House Resolution 328; Monday's Rollcall vote #381--Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass H. Con. Res. 175; Monday's Rollcall vote #382--Motion to Suspend the Rules and pass H. Res. 364; Tuesday's Rollcall vote #383--Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 365; Tuesday's Rollcall vote #384--Passage of House Resolution 365; Tuesday's Rollcall vote #385-- The Hyde amendment to H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal 2006 and 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The Brown amendment seeks to prevent the President's Council of Economic Advisers, a highly reputable group, from referencing an independent study that concluded the average new drug or medicine takes $800 million to develop in its future economic reports.

This $800 million figure comes from a 2003 Tufts University study, not from the PhRMA, pharmaceutical industry, and not from the administration. There is nothing partisan or slanted about its findings. To try to block information just because you disagree with it is not the way to serve the American people who deserve and expect debate on the real costs of researching and developing pharmaceuticals. This amendment amounts, basically, to censorship and deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee of Morris County, New Jersey, a vibrant organization I am proud to represent! On June 24, 2005 the Trustees and Friends of the Committee are celebrating its Tenth Anniversary.

The Great Swamp Watershed is a 55 square mile region in Morris and Somerset Counties and includes portions of Bernardsville Borough, Bernards Township, Chatham Township, Harding Township, Long Hill Township, Borough of Madison, Mendham Borough, Mendham Township, the Town of Morristown, and Morris Township.

The Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee was formed in 1995 through an Inter-municipal Cooperative Agreement among the ten municipalities that have lands within the Great Swamp Watershed. Developed under the auspices of the Morris County leadership group, Morris 2000 (now Morris Tomorrow), the Ten Towns Committee was formed for the specific purpose of developing and implementing a watershed management plan for the watershed in the Upper Passaic River basin of northern New Jersey.

Since its formation, the Ten Towns Committee has developed a full range of programs to protect water quality and water resources in the Great Swamp, including: a water quality monitoring program, development of environmental ordinances, and construction of ``Best Management Practices'' improvements to correct existing non-point source pollution conditions.

The Ten Towns Committee has been recognized as a model in the State of New Jersey and has received awards for its work from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my Colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee on the celebration of the Committee's ten years of service to the Great Swamp Watershed area. Special praise is due to their dedicated staff and active volunteers who work tirelessly to protect and enhance the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3010, the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor HHS Appropriations Act.

This bill contains funding for many important programs to protect our working men and women, provide for the education of our Nation's children, and support healthcare needs.

Specifically, I want to commend Chairman Regula and the Appropriations Committee for working with me to include increased funding in this bill to ensure that our country is better prepared against the emerging threat of a pandemic influenza. As the chairman noted so eloquently in his opening statement, this bill is about setting priorities and the chairman has rightfully focused increased resources on this very real threat to our Nation's health and security.

The chairman has rightfully included in this bill $530,000,000 for the Strategic National Stockpile, which is $63 million above the 2005 funding level to expand our Nation's strategic national stockpile of antiviral treatments as well as $120 million to ensure a year-round influenza vaccine production capacity in the U.S. and the development and implementation of rapidly expandable influenza production technologies.

The avian flu is a huge health risk and national security concern that we cannot ignore.

The Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have both acknowledged that the avian flu is a leading and quickly emerging threat to our population and that of other nations.

Currently, the avian flu is very contagious among birds, including chickens, ducks, and turkeys. It is believed that most cases of this flu in humans has resulted from contact with sick birds.

Health experts warn that a global pandemic could occur if avian flu eventually undergoes genetic changes, making it easily contagious among humans. Such an event could create a

global pandemic, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. and worldwide.

Already, the avian flu has killed 54 people in Southeast Asia in the past year, and just last week we learned of new human cases in Vietnam and a new case in Indonesia.

In response, the World Health Organization has again issued warnings to all governments urging them to act swiftly to control the spread of flu before it mutates into a form that can be easily transmitted among humans and become far deadlier. And further, these same health experts have urged all countries to increase their stockpiles of available antiviral treatments so that we are prepared for a worst case scenario.

This morning, I read with great interest Mort Kondracke's column in Roll Call, where he cited a cover story in the summer edition of the journal Foreign Affairs as saying avian flu could be ``the next pandemic.'' According to his column, the journal goes on to refer to avian flu as being ``far more dangerous than the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people worldwide in 1918 and 1919, including 675,000 in the United States.''

Mr. Chairman, we must prevent what is happening in Southeast Asia from spreading and reaching the American continent. If Americans are left unprotected and unprepared for an outbreak, there could be dire consequences.

Today, the national Strategic Stockpile includes antiviral treatment for just one percent of the population. If an avian flu pandemic occurred today, this would leave millions of Americans susceptible to infection, and possibly death.

The threat of avian flu spreading across our borders is not going away, and neither can our commitment to protecting the American people from such a risk. The funding included in this bill for the purchase of antiviral vaccines and ongoing efforts to develop an effective vaccine against the avian flu is hugely necessary for the security and health of all Americans.

Again, I commend the chairman for placing the highest priority on this urgent need and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.