Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the National Defense Features Program. As my colleagues may know, Congress created this program in 1992 response to a report by the Department of Defense describing a shortage of sealift capacity during military contingencies. At that time, Congress decided the best way to solve the shortage of shipping space for heavy military vehicles and other cargo would be the NDF program, providing a cost-effective way to augment the substantial investment that was being made in new sealift ships by the Navy. Within the last several years, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds to install special defense features in new commercial vessels to be built in the shipyards of the United States. Most recently, as a result of the leadership of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, Congress included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 a provision that would expand the Secretary of Defense's ability to fund militarily useful projects under the NDF program. Since the NDF program was launched, Congress anticipated that our allies would recognize the mutual defense benefits of promoting the program on their trade routes with the United States. One particular project that has received attention called for ten commercial vessels to be built in the United States based on a design funded and approved by DARPA's Maritime Technology Program. These vessels would normally operate in the Japan-United States vehicle trade, which is at present entirely dominated by Japanese carriers. This project is also important to maritime labor and our new domestic shipyards, which continue to support our NDF program and to look for new, viable commercial projects. Notwithstanding past expressions of support by senior government officials, this expectation has not been realized. Unfortunately, the Government of Japan In view of the US role in providing security for our allies in the Far East, it hardly seems appropriate that defense concerns expressed by our government should not have been met with a more positive response by our allies in the region. Past discussions with the Japanese government have not yielded desired results, as the NDF program continues to be characterized as one with limited military value. This position has been contradicted by two US Navy reports on the NDF program. Given our past history of military cooperation with the Japanese government, the reluctance encountered on the NDF program, especially in light of its military value, has been somewhat surprising. Unfortunately, the Japanese government's position appears to have been driven by commercial rather than governmental factors. Japan, like other nations, supports its merchant marine with financial assistance, including direct construction loans at artificially low rates of interest. The reason our carriers are effectively being excluded from this market is the Japanese kereitsu system of doing business. It is not price, but rather the interwoven industrial and financial structure that closes this market, like so many other sectors of the Japanese economy, against international competition. This situation makes it quite difficult for a fleet of US built and operated ships which are commercially competitive and have significant defense value to both nations to break through the economic fence encircling the Japanese vehicle trade. Despite this resistance, I continue to hope that the Government of Japan and the vehicle manufacturers will ultimately recognize the merits of supporting the NDF program, especially given the longstanding support of the Department of Defense. Last year, the former Secretary of Defense and the Given past experience, these new communication channels may not prove enough. That is why today, along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, I am introducing the National Defense Features Program Enhancement Act. Under this bill, if the Federal Maritime Commission finds that vessels built under the NDF program are unable to obtain employment in a particular trade route in the foreign commerce of the United States for which they are designed to operate, and if that sector of the trade route has been dominated historically by citizens of an allied nation, the Commission can take action to counteract the restrictive trade practices that have led to this situation. I wish it were not necessary to introduce legislation to encourage support for a program so self-evidently in the mutual security interests of allied nations, and that through consultation between our Nation and Japan we can begin to undertake the much-needed recapitalization of our aging Ready Reserve Force. Should that not prove the case, I look forward to working with my colleagues to move forward this legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, once again, I come to the floor to recognize the great success of strong local school systems working with dedicated parents and teachers in raising young men and women. I rise today to congratulate and honor 30 outstanding high school artists from the 11th Congressional District of New Jersey. Each of these talented students participated in the Annual Congressional Arts Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery'' and they are honored at a reception and exhibit in Madison, New Jersey. Their works are exceptional! Mr. Speaker, I would like to list each of them, their high school, and their contest entries for the official Record. We had 30 students participate. That is a tremendous response and we'd very much like to build on that for next year's competition. This year, Mr. Speaker, the winner of ``An Artistic Discovery'' was Yuan Gao from Montville High School for the work entitled ``Unfinished Drink.'' Second place went to Michael Lyons from Morris Knolls High School for ``Colored.'' Third place went to Daniel I. Jedell from Montville High School for ``Black Diamond Trail.'' The Viewer's Choice Award was given to Caroline from Wurster of Ridge High School for ``While Visions of Sugar Plums Danced in Their Heads.'' Honorable mentions were awarded to Peter Donahue of Morris Knolls High School for ``The Spare Room,'' Matthew Schwartz from Morris Hills High School for ``Morning Drive,'' Dominik Cymer from Ridge High School for ``Abracadabra,'' Amy Nemeth from Boonton High School for ``High School,'' Michael Hrynio from Dover High School for ``Remember When,'' and Nelson Chen from Morris Knolls High School for ``Life.'' Excellent art work was also submitted by Tara Kreitter of the Academy of St. Elizabeth, untitled; Jenny Blankenship of Boonton High School, ``Self Portrait;'' Ashley Lamwers of Boonton High School, ``Melting Pot;'' Laura Schaffnit of Boonton High School, ``The Rising Tide;'' Brian Bernal of Dover High School, ``Endless Garden;'' Jose Santana from Dover High School, ``Siempre Contigo;'' Christopher Stefanski of Dover High School, ``Winter Impression;'' Jeffrey Gurwin of Livingston High School, untitled; Yaldi Kasani of Livingston High School, ``My Life;'' Amanda Long of Livingston High School, ``A Reflective Moment;''; Jackie Romola of Montville High School, ``Self Portrait;'' Melanie Elizabeth Walits of Montville High School, ``Pieces of Me;'' Jamie Allen of Morris Knolls High School, ``Translucence;'' Tim Quirino of Mount Olive High School, untitled; Katherine Aliprando of Ridge High School, ``Mortal Mirror;'' Richard Joneleit of Ridge High School, ``Self Portrait;'' Kea Alcock of West Morris Mendham High School, ``Burnt Island'' and ``Curtain & Sunlight;'' Tiffany Frazier of West Morris Mendham High School, ``Shadows & Silent Water;'' and Robert Lamb of West Morris Mendham High School, ``Church in Contrast.'' Each year the winner of the competition will have an opportunity to travel to our nation's capital to meet Congressional leaders and to mount his or her art work in a special corridor here at the U.S. Capitol, with winners from across the country. Every time a vote is called, I get a chance to walk through that corridor and am reminded of the vast talents of our young men and women. Indeed, all of these young artists are winners, and we should be proud of their achievements so early in life. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating these talented young people from New Jersey's 11th Congressional District.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001. This legislation will help millions of working Americans plan for a secure retirement by giving them the ability and incentive to save during their working years. It will also allow many small businesses the opportunity to provide pension coverage for their employees. A main component of H.R. 10 will raise the contribution limit for both traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's) from $2,000 to $5,000. This even includes a ``catch-up'' provision allowing workers age 50 and older to make an immediate contribution of up to $5,000 to their IRA's. This provision is helpful to Older Americans who may not have had the opportunity to contribute to a retirement savings plan in their earlier working years and especially critical to women who enter the workforce later in life. Second, this bill provides portability for individuals with 401k-type plans. As you know, in today's changing economy, statistics show that an average worker does not stay in one job for more than five years. To accommodate the needs of a growing mobile workforce, H.R. 10 will allow workers to change jobs without fear of losing their accumulated retirement savings. In addition, workers will also be able to become vested in a pension plan in 3 years instead of the current 5. Finally, this legislation removes many of the burdensome regulations and administrative costs, such as an IRS ``user fee,'' which in many cases prevent small businesses from offering employer pension plans. This freedom and flexibility will not only allow small businesses to provide a pension plan, but just as important, gives an incentive for employees to stay in the workforce and make important contributions to company growth and productivity. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is important because it reaffirms our bipartisan commitment to providing a safe and secure retirement for generations of Americans. We have already stopped the ``raid'' on Social Security and locked away the $2.6 trillion Social Security surplus from other government spending. Now, we are helping American families and individuals, especially the seventy million Americans who do not have a retirement savings plan or pension, with incentives to take that extra step in making critical, short-term investments in retirement savings. People will now be able to fulfill and enjoy their long-term hopes and dreams during their retirement years.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate once again in the annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide today, 86 years after this terrible tragedy which claimed the lives of over 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923. The Armenian Genocide began in 1915 with the rounding up and killing of Armenian soldiers by the Turkish government. After that, the government turned its attention to slaughtering Armenian intellectuals. They were killed because of their ethnicity, the first group in the 20th Century killed not for their actions, but for who they were. By the time the bloodshed of the genocide ended, the victims included the aged, women and children who had been forced from their homes and marched to relocation camps, beaten and brutalized along the way. In addition to the 1.5 million dead, over 500,000 Armenians were driven from their homeland. It is important that we make the time, every year, to remember the victims of the Armenian genocide. We hope that, by remembering the bloodshed and atrocities committed against the Armenians, we can prevent this kind of tragedy from repeating itself Unfortunately, history continues to prove us wrong. That is why we must be so vigilant in remembering the past. It is important to continue to talk about the Armenian genocide. We must keep alive the memory of those who lost their lives during the eight years of bloodshed in Armenia. We must educate other nations who have not recognized that the Armenian genocide occurred. Mr. Speaker, I commend Armenian-Americans--the survivors and their descendants--who continue to educate the world about the tragedy of the Armenian Genocide and make valuable contributions to our shared American culture. Because of their efforts, the world will not be allowed to forget the memory of the victims of the first 20th Century holocaust.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer congratulations to the Borough of Butler, of Morris County, New Jersey, which celebrates its centennial anniversary today. Although known as Butler today, this community was originally called West Bloomingdale. Nestled in the foothills of the Ramapo Mountains, West Bloomingdale was still a village until, in 1879, land speculators realized the economic opportunities that could come to this area along the banks of the Kakeout Brook and Pequannock River. The growth of the community is directly linked to the development of the rubber industry in the area. In fact, the community honored the president of the American Rubber Company, Richard Butler, by naming its post office after him in 1881. Through the efforts of Mr. Butler, the land was surveyed and the village streets were laid out. Mr. Butler also donated land for the early school and the churches within the community. As an industrial community, Butler experienced extensive growth, both economically and socially. Factories were built, the population grew, freight and passenger train service thrived. By an act of the New Jersey Legislature, Butler became incorporated on March 13, 1901. Prominent in the continued development of the borough was the American Hard Rubber Company and the Pequanoc Rubber Company, which employed over 1,000 people. The relatively stable employment picture of these two plants contributed to the economic welfare of the community. The Borough of Butler owned municipal services not possessed by many other towns of a like size in the country. The Butler Water Company and The Butler Electric Company have serviced Butler and surrounding communities since the early 1900's. In 1902 the Butler Volunteer Fire Department was formed. Law enforcement was handled under the Marshall system from 1901 until March 13, 1939 when the Butler Police Department was started. The borough has graciously funded the Butler Museum since 1976 so that its history can be retained. A fire at the Pequanoc River Company in 1957 and the closure of the Amerace Corporation (American Hard Rubber Company) in 1974 brought an end to the heyday of the factories in Butler and the beginnings of the lovely town one sees today. Butler's Centennial Celebration has its 7,200 residents reminiscing about its rich history and it has them looking forward to retaining Butler's ``small town'' quality, which serves as an attraction for small business' and industries. The mayor and town council are beginning the next 100 years by revitalizing the borough with an attractive downtown area, by its continuing support of its schools, and by ongoing beautification programs for the borough park. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Borough of Butler on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2, The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001. This legislation protects the $2.9 trillion Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surplus from being used for any other government spending. More importantly, this legislation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring a safe and secure retirement for current and future generations of Older Americans. This legislation in effect creates a security ``lockbox'' to ensure that the FICA or payroll taxes we pay over the course of many years of hard work are used exactly as they are intended to be used--for Social Security and Medicare. This ``lockbox'' ensures our money is protected. When I came to Congress in 1994, taxes were at an all time high, the budget was out of balance, deficit spending was soaring out of control and the Social Security and Medicare trust fund was being raided to pay for other government programs. To put it bluntly, our fiscal house was in shambles. But what a difference a few years has made. Today, I am proud that we have balanced the federal budget, paid down over $363 billion dollars of the national debt and cut taxes, all the while protecting and preserving Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, as we begin our work in the 107th Congress, the Federal government's projected cumulative surplus--some $5.7 trillion dollars over the next ten years--presents us with a historic and unprecedented opportunity to continue on a bipartisan course of fiscal discipline. Let's not look back at this moment as an era of missed opportunity. In the coming days and months, there will be plenty of time to debate what to do with the remainder of the surplus. But before we engage in that debate, we must continue paying down the debt and make clear our commitment to ensuring that Social Security and Medicare will be available to current retirees as well as for our children and grandchildren. That's three generations of Americans that we will ensure have basic retirement security by preserving and protecting Social Security and Medicare. For the past two years, Congress has put aside Social Security and Medicare taxes so these monies aren't spent on other federal programs. With this ``lockbox'' legislation, Congress will be making these actions a permanent part of the budget process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2. Let us, today, give future generations of Americans the security of knowing that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they most need it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, every year, more high school seniors from the 11th Congressional District trade in varsity jackets for Navy peacoats, Air Force flight suits, and Army brass buckles than any other district in the county. But this is nothing new--our area has repeatedly sent an above-average proportion of its sons and daughters to the Nation's military academies for decades. This shouldn't come as a surprise. The educational excellence of our area 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 the Government. Rather, the procedure still used today was, and is, one 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 that 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 nine local citizens who have shown exemplary service to New Jersey, to their communities, and to the continued excellence of education in our area--many are veterans. Though from diverse backgrounds and professions, they all share a common dedication to seeing that the best qualified and motivated graduates attend our academies. And, as is true for most volunteer panels, their service goes largely unnoticed. I would like to take a moment to recognize these men and women and to 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 their Representative 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 mid-December, 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. Last year, the board interviewed over 30 applicants. Nominations included 10 to the Naval Academy, 7 to the Military Academy, 4 to the Air Force Academy, and 5 to the Merchant Marine Academy--the Coast Guard Academy does not use the Congressional nomination process. The Board then forwards their recommendations to the academies by January 31, where recruiters review files and notify applicants and my office of their final decisions on admission. It is both reassuring and rewarding to know that many of our military officers hail from our hometowns or close by. When we consider the role of these officers in peace or war, we can rest easier knowing that the best and brightest are in command. Wherever they are sent, be that Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti or the Persian Gulf, many of these officers have academy training. And while a few people may question the motivations and ambitions of some young people, the academy review process shows that the large majority of our graduates are just as highly motivated as the guidance from loving parents, dedicated teachers and schools, and from trusted clergy and rabbis. Indeed, every time I visit a school, speak at a college, or meet a young academy nominee, I am constantly reminded that we as a nation are blessed with fine young men and women. Their willingness and desire to serve their country is perhaps the most persuasive evidence of all. Academy Nominees for 2001, 11th Congressional District, New Jersey Air Force Academy Christopher Hill, Pompton Plains, Peqannock H.S.; Tin T. Nguyen, Denville, Morris Knolls H.S.; Michael Raphel, Jr., Bridgewater, Bridgewater-Raritan; and Alexander T. Wong, Montville, Montville H.S. Merchant Marine Joseph M. Crowley, Randolph, Randolph H.S.; Michael Frediani, Morris Plains, Parsippany H.S.; James J. Maye, IV, Bridgewater, Bridgewater-Raritan; Bradley W. Schmidt, Mine Hill, Dover H.S.; and Patrick H. Uhles, Montville, Montville

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to wish our colleague Ron Packard well in his retirement from the House of Representatives at the end of this 106th Congress. Tonight a number of us have gathered in this Chamber during this special time to pay tribute to our colleague and our friend who has served with distinction in this people's House for 18 years. All of us know this very good-natured gentleman from California is one of only four Members of Congress to have ever won their first election to the Congress as a write-in candidate, a tremendous feat in and of itself. Little did we know that Ron would go from that point in 1982 to become chairman of three very important House appropriations subcommittees. As other Members have mentioned, many of us here tonight know Ron for his years of service on the House Committee on Appropriations. I myself have had the honor of serving with him on that committee, and most recently I have had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship on the appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water. For the past 2 years, Ron has been steadfast in reversing the President's decision to underfund our Nation's infrastructure needs. Due to his leadership, the Congress has maintained a strong commitment to partnerships with our local communities and States by providing these needed funds for flood control, shore protection and dredging our harbors and the like. As a former businessman, school board member, city councilman, and mayor, Ron has always believed that the Federal Government should provide a helpful hand but the true power and decisions should be returned to State and local government officials who know the best needs of their constituents. On a personal note, in July of 1999, I traveled with Ron and his wife, Jean, and other Members to Russia as part of our committee assignment on Energy and Water. Ron and our colleagues toured the Russian ``closed cities'' or the former nuclear sites and met with numerous Russian officials. It was a trip to remember, in large part due to Ron's leadership, his insistence that we see where U.S. dollars were being spent to dispose of or contain nuclear waste. Throughout our trip within Russia, Ron showed his dedication to our purpose for being there and to the American people by insisting on receiving a complete understanding of the current status of all of these nuclear sites. Additionally during this trip, I had the opportunity to get to know Ron and Jean; and I can tell you, judging from our discussions about our families, that Ron and Jean will definitely continue to be busy grandparents, taking a very active role in all of their 34 grandchildren's lives. The Congress' loss will be his family's gain. I wish you well in retirement, Ron. You have set a high standard for all of us to follow that remain. We will miss you. Good luck and Godspeed.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD appropriations conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his leadership, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his leadership, and the great work of the staff in meeting the many priorities that we all want included in the bill. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the bill increases funding for veterans' medical care, as has been said earlier, by $1.35 billion over last year's level for a total 2-year increase of $3 billion. This is absolutely critical funding that will be used to provide our veterans with nursing home care, treatment for serious mental illnesses, prescription drugs, routine medical care, and other badly needed services. One way the money can be used next year will be to provide each of the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks, or VISNs, with a higher rate of reimbursement for treating veterans with the hepatitis C virus. This may not be on everybody's radar screen, but the disabling disease of the liver affects a large number of veterans, especially those of the Vietnam era. The treatment for the disease is costing an average of $15,000 a year for medications alone. Yet the VA only reimburses VISNs at the low, basic-care rate of $3,200. As a result of language contained in the conference report, this will now change. At the Chair's insistence and my assistance and the committee members, we are now directing the VA to reimburse the VISNs for hepatitis C at the higher, complex-care rate of $42,000 per patient being treated for the disease. I particularly would like, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Vietnam Veterans of America for their strong advocacy on the matter. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the conference report provides additional funding for affordable housing for all Americans, especially older Americans and disabled individuals under section 202 and section 811.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Congress created the national defense features program in response to a report by the Department of Defense describing a shortage of sealift capacity during military contingencies. This shortage of shipping space for heavy military vehicles and other cargo was best cured by a program such as the NDF program that would be the most cost-effective way to augment the substantial investment that was being made in new sealift ships by the Navy. Within the last several years, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds to install special defense features in new commercial vessels to be built in the shipyards of the United States. Most recently, at my request and as a result of the leadership of our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, Congress included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 a provision that would expand the Secretary of Defense's ability to fund militarily useful projects under the NDF program. Since the NDF program was launched, Congress expected that our allies, particularly Japan, would find mutual defense benefits in promoting the program on their trade routes with the United States. Under one project that has received attention, ten commercial vessels would be built in the United States based on a design funded and approved by DARPA's Maritime Technology Program. These vessels would normally operate in the Japan-United States vehicle trade, which is at present entirely dominated by Japanese carriers. Notwithstanding expressions of support by very senior officials in our government, this expectation has not been realized. The Government of Japan continues to take the position that the decision to employ NDF ships is strictly a matter for the commercial judgment of Japanese vehicle manufacturing and shipping companies. The vehicle manufacturers, which operate under closely inter-locking relationships with the Japanese vehicle carriers, continue to insist that the NDF program is a matter between the two respective governments since it addresses defense. In view of the US role in providing security for our Far East allies, it hardly seems appropriate that defense concerns expressed by our government should not have been met with a more positive response. Our government's repeated representations to the Japanese government have fallen on deaf ears as if the NDF program was without military value, a position that is contradicted by two US Navy reports on the NDF program. Taking note of the extensive military collaboration of our two governments, which it is safe to say has conferred material benefits on Japan, this is not the position that Congress should have expected. The position that this matter is purely commercial in nature rather than governmental in character is not defensible. Japan, like other nations, supports its merchant marine with financial assistance, including direct construction loans at artificially low rates of interest. This is not the mark of a purely private industry operating under purely commercial conditions. The real reason our carriers are effectively being excluded from this market is the Japanese kereitsu system of doing business. It is not price, but rather the interwoven industrial and financial structure that closes this market like so many other sectors of the Japanese economy against international competition. The situation, then, is that a fleet of US built and operated ships, commercially competitive and having significant defense value to both nations, has apparently no chance to break through the economic fence encircling the Japanese vehicle trade. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, I continue to hope that the Government of Japan and the vehicle manufacturers will ultimately see the merit of supporting the NDF program, especially given the longstanding support of the Department of Defense. Recently, the Secretary of Defense and the Director General of the Japanese Self- Defense Agency agreed to establish a regular consultative mechanism to ensure closer cooperation in improving our mutual defense capabilities. I understand the Secretary of Defense suggested that this might be an appropriate mechanism to move the NDF program forward. I agree. Given past experience, however, we may nonetheless not see the type of action that is by now long overdue. Therefore, along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, I am introducing a bill today that we intend to push later next year if we do not see any movement on the part of the Government of Japan. The bill is very straightforward. It says: If the Federal Maritime Commission finds that vessels built under the NDF program are unable to obtain employment in a particular trade route in the foreign commerce of the United States for which they are designed to operate, and if that sector of the trade route has been dominated historically by citizens of an allied nation, then the Commission shall take action to counteract the restrictive trade practices that have led to this situation. I trust it will not be necessary to enact legislation to encourage support for a program so self-evidently in the mutual security interests of our two nations and that as a result of the new consultative mechanism the NDF program can begin the much needed recapitalization of our aging Ready Reserve Force.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today we salute the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Edward Porter, as he prepares to retire after 20 years of dedicated service in the House of Representatives, to the people of Illinois, and to our Nation. I rise to join my colleagues in paying tribute to him and the legacy he leaves behind. Mr. Porter embodies a unique blend of fiscal conservatism and social moderation. He is known as a most thoughtful, articulate, and responsible member of the Appropriations Committee, a consistent advocate for human rights for all people, a protector of volunteers to encourage their greater participation in their communities, and a supporter of programs that help men, women, and children in need to have full and productive lives. It has been my honor to serve with Mr. Porter as a member of the House Appropriations Committee for the past six years. As Chairman of its Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Subcommittee, he has had the Herculean task of shepherding the largest domestic spending bill through our committee and this Chamber. Not only does this bill contain a substantial amount of money, it also contains a substantial amount of controversial policy issues. Mr. Porter has done an excellent job of balancing all the competing interests as he worked to craft his annual bill. In this regard, I applaud especially his work to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health and biomedical research. Believing that more funds would lead to more cures for diseases and other medical advances, Chairman Porter embarked on an ambitious program to double the NIH budget over five years. Against all odds, and under tight budget constraints, he has managed to increase NIH funding by 15 percent a year for the past three years. At this rate, Congress would meet his goal of doubling that budget in five years. I hope that my colleagues would continue toward that objective and that his leadership with the NIH will be remembered as one of his greatest legacies. On a more personal note, I particularly remember our work as members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. In particular, I recall one battle we waged together in 1997 when we opposed certain provisions of the Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that we thought should not have been included. One thing you can say about John Porter, he always stands up for his principles. In this particular case, like so many others, he prevailed in the end because he knew the facts and the cause was just. My work with Mr. Porter was not just confined to the Appropriations Committee, as both of us have been members of the Tuesday Lunch Bunch. Here we consumed a lot of pizza and discussed issues facing us in Congress that deserved extra attention and deliberation. While we are saddened to see Mr. Porter retire, we join in wishing him well in the future and thanking him for the high standard he has set for all of us.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment the provisions in the Conference Report on the Agriculture Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 that deal with ``drug reimportation.'' First and foremost, I want the record to reflect that I, like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support a comprehensive plan to provide prescription medicines at more affordable prices to our senior citizens under Medicare. When Medicare was first created in 1965, prescription medicines were not a major part of our health care delivery system. Thanks to all the incredible medical breakthroughs over the past decades since the inception of the Medicare program, we now have medicines that can successfully treat thousands of the most serious illnesses and provide relief to millions of citizens suffering from illness. It is time to modernize Medicare to reflect the fact that prescription medicines are a major part of health care for all of our citizens, especially older men and women. This hastily written legislation that will open our borders to imported drugs, however well intentioned, cannot be considered an adequate substitute for a comprehensive prescription drug coverage for our seniors under Medicare. These reimportation provisions are bad public policy: potentially endangering U.S. citizens by exposing them to ``reimported'' medicines that may be bogus or fake, outdated and untested. Secondly, it should be clear that nothing in these provisions change existing patent laws. In fact, the United States led the negotiations of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), which gives a patent owner of a product exclusive rights to make, use or import a patented product. No one else can do so without permission for the term of the patent and nothing in this bill should be construed otherwise. Most important, I remain particularly concerned that this legislation might very well undermine our nation's Food and Drug Administration ``gold standard'' for ensuring the quality and safety of all medicines used by U.S. citizens and other consumers around the world. In that respect, I am pleased by the fact that the FDA must overcome necessary safety hurdles before this legislation is implemented. For instance, the drug reimportation provisions of this conference report, specifically section 745, will not go into effect until two important actions are taken. First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must demonstrate to the Congress that loosening current regulation of reimportation of prescription drugs will not place American consumers at risk. I want to emphasize that the demonstration of safety by the Secretary should be no ``pro forma'' paper exercise, but a real showing, with facts and figures, in the form of a report to Congress, that the kind of importation envisioned by these provisions is safe for consumers. If the Secretary cannot make this demonstration, these provisions cannot be implemented. Second, the Secretary must also demonstrate that individual consumers will realize a significant cost reduction from this legislation, making their drug purchases significantly more affordable for them, before it can be implemented. Now that Congress has acted, it is up to the FDA and the next Administration to ensure this policy can save consumers money, without threatening the world's highest standard of safety of America's medicines for our consumers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for yielding me time and for his leadership and assistance, and particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and the staff on the Committee on Commerce for their assistance with this bill, and also thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his kind words and for his assistance in fine-tuning this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I also need to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and their staffs for their help with this bill. Further, I want to thank the chairman of the Corrections Advisory Group, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and members of the Corrections Advisory Group for their prompt acceptance of this proposal. Mr. Speaker, the Know Your Caller Act will provide a simple but important consumer protection. Many consumers purchase and pay for the Caller ID service and Caller ID equipment for several reasons: to protect their privacy, to provide security by identifying an incoming call, and to allow them the opportunity to decide before picking up the receiver whether or not to answer that call. But, guess what? Some of the most frequent calls, those from telemarketers, appear with the message on Caller ID box, ``Out of the area; caller unknown.'' Mr. Speaker, telemarketing is a commercial enterprise. As such, what would be the reason for not disclosing your business telephone number? There simply is no reason. I believe that all commercial enterprises that use the telephone to advertise or sell their services to encourage the purchase of property or goods or for any other commercial purposes should be required to have the name of their business and their business telephone number disclosed on Caller ID boxes. Some telemarketer enterprises purposely block out Caller ID, yet these same companies know your name, your address, and your telephone number. Is it not only fair that they share their company name and their telephone number so a person can make sure that they are a legitimate company? Also, if you are like me and politely ask to have your name removed from their list, I think you should also be able to track the name and number of these telemarketing callers to ensure that they do not call back again repeatedly. My legislation will simply require any person making a telephone solicitation to identify themselves on Caller ID devices. Mr. Speaker, this legislation I think will greatly help separate legitimate telemarketers from fraudulent telemarketers. While a majority of these telemarketers are legitimate business people attempting to sell a product or service, there are some unscrupulous individuals and companies violating existing telemarketing rules and scamming consumers. Consumers pay a monthly fee to subscribe to a Caller ID service because they want to protect their privacy and their pocketbooks, but they have little recourse because most telemarketers intentionally block their identity from being transmitted to Caller ID devices. Mr. Speaker, we already require telemarketers under present law to identify themselves over the telephone and via telephone fax transmissions. This bill simply extends that protection to consumers with Caller ID devices. Mr. Speaker, in closing, when someone knocks at your door, do you not usually look out the window to see who it is before you answer it? Well, Caller ID acts as a window for consumers to let them know who is calling before you answer the telephone. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as cosponsor and supporter of H. Con. Res. 399, which recognizes the 25th anniversary of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now know as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. When the Education for All handicapped Children Act was first signed into law on November 29, 1975, it marked an historic milestone for children with disabilities. For the first time, special needs children were guaranteed access to a free and appropriate education. Unfortunately, since this legislation was first signed into law, the Federal government has been remiss in paying for its full share of the costs associated with educating special needs children. The original act set forth a framework whereby 40 percent of the average costs of educating a special needs child would be paid by the Federal government. To date, that level has never been reached. As a result, state and local school districts have been forced to divert money from other needed services, including school construction and teacher training, to pay for the government's share of IDEA. Congress, over the past six years, has done incredible work to provide additional funding for IDEA over and above the Administration's requested level, doubling the amount of money the Federal government is providing to state and local school districts to pay for the costs associated with this program. Unfortunately, the funding still falls short of the 40 percent the Federal government committed to paying for IDEA. I am pleased that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act, earlier this year. However, despite the importance of fully funding our obligation under IDEA, H.R. 4055 is still pending in the Senate. I would hope that my colleagues in the other body will take the opportunity of the 25th Anniversary of this critical education program to pass H.R. 4055, and once and for all meet the Federal government's funding obligation to IDEA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, for introducing this legislation, and for all his hard work toward ensuring the Federal government honors its commitment to special needs children. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans for the virus. For several years, I and other members of this chamber from across the country have been asking the VA to look at the growing problem of Hepatitis C among the veterans population, and to dedicate the necessary resources to fighting this disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that an estimated 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, although that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam- era veterans are considered to be at greatest risk, since many may have been exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat- related surgical care during the Vietnam War. Despite all the attention to Hepatitis C, and all that we are learning about this disease, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. We know this because the VA's handling of Hepatitis C has been raised in hearings in the House, both in the VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee, of which I am a member, as well as the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations and the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits. In fact, in the VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee hearing held on March 22, 2000, former VA Secretary Togo West claimed that the VA was unable to spend all of the Fiscal Year 2000 Hepatitis C funding of $195 million because the demand was not there. He said, ``if you are hearing that we are not using all of say the $199 million that was appropriated in 2000 for hepatitis C, it would be because we are not seeing that incidence of patients that add up to that much money, essentially.'' Unfortunately, we are seeing that incidence of patients, most acutely in New Jersey and New York, but across the country as well. If the VA had properly spent the $195 million allocated in FY2000 on Hepatitis C testing and treatment, then there would have been little reason for the VA to release $20 million from the National Reserve Account on June 28, 2000. Based on the VA's own figures, the $20 million allocation was half of what the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks, or VISNs, had spent on Hepatitis C in just the first two quarters of FY2000 alone! This money was not even a downpayment toward the Hepatitis C costs being incurred by all 22 VISNs. Further, only a fraction of the 3.5 million veterans enrolled nationally with the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans do not have. As a result of the VA's inaction, I am introducing the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and set new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. First, the bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA system, and provide annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the VA system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease. Veterans who request a liver biopsy or Hepatitis C genotype from VA would be able to receive those tests under this bill. Under the VA's current policy, veterans in some areas of the country have been denied access to these critical tests. And, VA staff would be provided with increased training options intended to improve the quality of care for veterans with Hepatitis C. Finally, the VA is encouraged to provide each VA hospital with one staff member, preferably trained in psychiatry, psychology or social work, to coordinate treatment options and other information with patients. This bill would increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY01, the $340 million in Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and will be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 VISNs based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus. The VISNs will be allowed to use other funds to pay for the costs associated with Hepatitis C testing and treatment, but the $340 million in the Specific Purpose account could be used to pay for the costs related to Hepatitis C care. Finally, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C in each of the 22 VISNs. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop a standard, specific Hepatitis C diagnosis code for measurement and treatment purposes. Finally, the VA must develop a national ``reminder system'' to alert untested veterans to the need and availability of Hepatitis C testing. Mr. Speaker, many veterans do not even realize that they may be infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and the VA is doing little to encourage them to get the critical testing they need. The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. With the passage of the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, veterans will finally be provided with access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C since 1992. They have not acted, and they must not be allowed to continue to push this disease under the rug. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment No. 6.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment is quite simple. Government Web sites exist to serve the public. They should not be used to collect personal information about people who use these sites, unless the public chooses to disclose personal information to the government. Recent news reports reveal that some Federal agency Web sites are placing what are called ``cookies'' on the personal computers of people who view and access government Web sites. This cookie technology basically allows the operator of a Web site to follow users around as they visit the site, and has the potential to continue to follow that user around after they have left the site. I think that the use of this cookie technology on government Web sites raises many serious questions. For instance, do we really want the Federal Government to keep information on a user that tells them what page on the National Institutes of Health site the user looked up; how many times the user looked at the site; what time the user visited the site; what information the user downloaded from the site; and where the user went on the Web after they left that particular site? More important, why are they collecting this information? What are they using it for? What could this information be used for? Could it be misused? And, most especially, under what force of law do these agencies have the right to collect this information? In response to the public outcry about government Web sites using cookies, the Federal Office of Management and Budget did issue a policy directive on June 22 of this year. And while it is a step in the right direction, let me just quote from the directive, which states, ``Under this new Federal policy, cookies should not be used at Federal Web sites unless in addition to clear and conspicuous notice the following conditions are met: A compelling need to collect data on the site, appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards, and personal approval by the head of the agency.'' Mr. Chairman, one agency's idea of what they call a ``compelling need'' may very well be in violation of my constituents' privacy. I do not think we want to put these decisions in the hands of every agency head, nor do I think we want privacy protections that vary from agency to agency. We need this time out, or moratorium, where agencies are barred from using these technologies until we have a government-wide consistent policy under force of law that provides the necessary protections against the unintentional and involuntary collection of people's personal information. Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a whole new arena for all of us in government as well as in the private sector, and we need the time to sort it through. I look forward to working with the chairman and others in Congress on this very important issue.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1102, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act. This bill contains a number of common-sense provisions to make it easier for Americans to build a stronger financial future for themselves. First and foremost, the bill increases the amount of money an individual can contribute to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The current $2,000 a year level, which has remained unchanged since 1981, would be increased to $5,000. An estimated 35 million Americans have some sort of IRA account, and nearly 70 percent of them contribute the maximum amount each year. Passage of H.R. 1102 will allow these individuals to set aside an even greater amount of money to prepare for their future retirement security. Second, the bill allows workers to become vested in less time--three years instead of five--and makes 401(k)-type plans more portable. As we know, workers no longer spend their entire careers with the same company. Instead, workers increasingly change jobs several times over the course of their careers. Under the provisions of H.R. 1102, these workers will be able to bring their accumulated retirement savings with them when they switch jobs. Lastly, this bill also allows older men and women, aged 50 and up, to make a $5,000 ``catch up'' contribution to their IRAs and increases the limit on salary reduction contributions to 401(k)-type plans to $15,000. Further, H.R. 1102 reduces administrative burdens, such as reporting requirements, to encourage small businesses to offer pension plans. According to the Treasury Department, there are 75 million Americans who do not participate in a retirement pension plan and have little or no other retirement savings. For these individuals, as well as the millions of Americans who already contribute to IRAs or other retirement accounts, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. All of us benefit when citizens prepare for their future retirement security and families have incentives to save.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as well. First, I think Members need to think long and hard about whether or not we want the Federal Government in the business of keeping the books on private industry, any private industry. I believe that it is entirely inappropriate for the Federal Government to have such a role. Second, looking at the specific language of this amendment, it would require every company seeking approval for every new medicine to, and I quote, ``agree to a quarterly disclosure during the patent life of the drug of the average price charged by the manufacturer in each company that is a member of the OECD, which is the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development.'' What does this exactly mean? Many of these OECD countries have price controls, and just about all of them do. Are we asking the sponsors, asking the companies to provide us with a list of other countries' price controls? As we know, even in these countries, largely Europe and in the United States and Canada, and specifically in countries with price controls which we do not have, there is no single price for medicines. Whether here at home or abroad, prices vary everywhere. That happens to be the marketplace at work. All of us here, as I said a few minutes ago, are supportive of providing better access to prescription drugs to those who need them. Price controls are not the answer. Canada certainly does not have all the answers. But as we work to provide greater coverage and access, we do not want to undermine today's American private scientific research and medical innovation that will continue to find tomorrow's cures for the ills of the world and within our own country. This type of amendment will do just that. Like its predecessor, it needs to be soundly defeated.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, all of us here are supportive of providing better access to prescription drugs to those that need them. Just 2 weeks ago, we fought all day to provide greater coverage for older Americans. We all agree that no person, particularly the older people, the elderly, should ever have to choose between food and medicine. But as we work to provide greater coverage and access, we do not want to undermine today's private scientific research and medical innovation that will continue to find tomorrow's cures, which I believe this amendment does. Mr. Chairman, in our collective excitement to do more here, some today appear to be determined to do just that with a number of seemingly attractive amendments to this agricultural appropriations bill. They seek to do so by promoting poorly disguised price controls, by throwing out Food and Drug Administration protections for consumers, by suggesting that all imported drugs are safe, reliable and fresh, and we know they are not; by holding up Canada as a model of health care delivery and inexpensive medicines, which it is not; by requiring price disclosures that no other American industry has to comply with; and by demanding research and development information and denying their product approvals if not forthcoming and by ignoring the fact that about 25 cents on the R&D dollar actually results in an approved FDA product or new medicine. And they seek to do so, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that it is only the National Institutes of Health that does basic research and that the taxpayers are being ripped off by the pharmaceutical companies. While the rhetoric fits the times, the facts deserve some weight. With specific regard to the Allen amendment, I believe we are better served by promoting research partnerships between government and the private sector that yield new medicines and cures, not by discouraging them. This amendment deserves to be soundly defeated.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Florida and California to reduce funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation by $54 million--the amount of money made available last year for sugar producers. Mr. Chairman, there is virtually no disagreement that the nation's sugar programs are flawed. In fact, an article which appeared last month in the Palm Beach Post quoted two sugar growers who admitted that the program has problems, and as one said, ``some new policy is going to have to be developed.'' Until then, we should not continue to pour taxpayer dollars into the sugar sinkhole. The sugar market is glutted, yet producers continue to grow more sugar, and as a result, grow fat off these sweet Federal subsidies. While sugar producers get all the treats, the taxpayers wind up picking up the tab for all these tricks. Consumers are stuck paying higher prices for foods made with sugar, after already being forced to contribute tax dollars to pay for these subsidies. That doesn't sound like a sweet deal to me! Frankly, the USDA's sugar policies have left a bitter taste in my mouth. We should stop subsidizing sugar growers, and instead start spending that money on more deserving programs, such as child nutrition programs, WIC, and agricultural research. Mr. Chairman, let's get the sugar industry's hands out of the Federal cookie jar, and stop subsidizing Big Sugar. Support the Miller/Miller Amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I spent the last two Saturdays in the 11th Congressional District of New Jersey meeting with my constituents in town meetings as I have done on so many other weekends in the past. Through winter, spring and now summer, one of the issues I get asked about is: when will Congress provide a prescription drug benefit for our older Americans? Our constituents should not have to choose between putting food on the table or paying for their next month's supply of medicine. Our older men and women want, and deserve, the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are covered by a safe, affordable, and easily accessible prescription drug benefit. The tremendous advances in medical science have produced amazing medical breakthroughs that help older Americans live longer, healthier, more active and independent lives. And so much of this is due to the continued development of new and better medicines that keep people healthy and out of hospitals. And while 65 percent of older men and women in America already have some form of prescription medication coverage, there are still too many who do not. Congress, and the President, need to provide a prescription benefit that allows choice, is affordable, available to all, and one that our older Americans can depend on to provide safe, effective therapies now and for the future. Today's action in the House is a good first step--and it's not the last step, either. But as we take this first step, and each one that will follow, we need to work together, Democrats and Republicans alike. Prescription medication coverage isn't a political issue; it's a health issue. Older Americans need us to work together to keep the Medicare program strong and solvent and to modernize the Medicare program to reflect today's health care needs. Unlike 30 years ago when Medicare was first designed, today medicines are an integral, important part of health care, and without such prescription drug coverage, medical coverage for our seniors is incomplete. So, let's work together and help give our older Americans the health care coverage they need and deserve.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill. Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very good nature. I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf. Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in our Nation. This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas. This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget. For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and property. Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million increase. With this funding, important scientific research will continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research. I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research. The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding will allow us to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support.