Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a pleasure to have yielded to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). I was two years-old when he became a Member of Congress, and it is a pleasure to be in the Chamber with him.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the foreign operations bill, and personally I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his leadership as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and our very excellent staff for all the good work they do. The challenges we face, Mr. Chairman, around the globe are increasingly complex: the struggle to find peace in the middle east and in the Balkans, the challenge of supporting emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, in central Asia, increased threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism around the world and economic deterioration in Asia and elsewhere; that has a big impact on American jobs and prosperity. With this bill we provide some of the essential tools to promote and protect America's leadership and interests, and we do so within the confines of our balanced budget agreement. Particular items worthy of note in this bill include the fact that with the full cooperation of Israel and Egypt this bill marks the beginning of a multiyear plan to reduce the level of assistance to Camp David countries, and, as our report reflects, our committee encourages other traditional aid recipients to follow the bold path undertaken by Israel. Under the chairman's leadership we have also restored critical funding for child survival programs and disease prevention and eradication. I am particularly appreciative of the chairman's supportive efforts to combat tuberculosis and other infectious diseases that have emerged as major threats around the world. We also continue America's longstanding support of development assistance for the poorest of the poor including international family planning programs. We also placed increased emphasis on important priorities in our own hemisphere, especially addressing the scourge of illegal narcotics traffic. Further, we maintain our efforts to protect export-related American jobs for providing resources through the Export-Import Bank, OPEC, TDA to help American companies enter and succeed in international markets, and when our American companies invest in developing economies, particularly in countries that receive U.S. taxpayer assistance in this bill, we make it clear that we expect these countries will provide no less than full legal protection for these investments. Finally, our subcommittee has spent a great deal of time and deliberation on the issue of resources for IMF. In this bill we do provide for the new arrangements to borrow, and the Senate has provided the full administration requests so that I anticipate that this issue will remain one for vigorous debate as our work is completed. We sought and continue to seek cooperation support of the administration for much needed reforms at the IMF in order that all Members can be confident that this is an investment worthy of our support. A lot more work needs to be done by all of us to educate the public and promote a greater confidence in all of our foreign aid activities as well as IMF. Finally, a note of personal thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and our ranking member for including language in our report on behalf of the families and victims of Pan Am Flight 103 who have never received proper justice.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the Township of Byram, County of Sussex, New Jersey. The Township of Byram, was founded on February 5, 1798 after officially separating from the Township of Newton. The land was named for the Byram family who had settled there before the Revolutionary War. Originally, the land was inhabited by the Lenape Indians, but by the early 1700s, few Indians remained in the area. The earliest settlements in Byram centered on iron mines and forges and the Township enjoyed many years of prosperity in this industry. Many of these sites are said to have been in operation before the Revolution and continued operating well into the Nineteenth Century. Two different types of ore were found in the many sites in Byram. With the development of the Morris Canal and with two railroads, the Lackawanna ``Cut-off'' and the Sussex Branch of the Lackawanna Railroad, crossing the Township, Byram continued to prosper. While there are no longer railroads in Byram today, these train lines were important to the economic and social development of the Township. Byram is not only a land of industry, but a land of nature and culture. Known as the ``Township of Lakes,'' Byram has more than two dozen lakes and ponds within or on its borders. Many of the residences surrounding the lake began as summer vacation homes, but now, many people live on the lakes year-round. Waterloo Village, first settled in the 1750's, has been completely restored with an eye for authenticity. The Village is open to the public and offers a variety of cultural activities year-round. Throughout its development, Byram continued to grow and many people have taken advantage of this peaceful place to live, work and raise a family. Today, Byram remains a vibrant residential area with a growing business community. Mr. Speaker, for the past 200 years, the Township of Byram has prospered as a community and continues to flourish today and it will continue to prosper in the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to congratulate all residents of Byram on this special anniversary year.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this Nation, and in this Congress, we are confronted with a serious constitutional crisis. In everyone's interest, Judge Starr's report should be released to the public without delay. For months we have listened to rumors and leaks. In order for the credibility of this Congress to remain intact, we must be armed with truth and the facts. The American people must share this confidence, and the only way to accomplish this, is for the information contained in Judge Starr's report to be made public. After all this time and the related costs, full disclosure is absolutely necessary. As a Member of Congress, I will fulfill my duty and obligation to review this matter in a tradition of bipartisan cooperation already reiterated by the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt. Congress will execute its duty under the Constitution, but more importantly, continue to work on a legislative agenda which assures Americans that our Nation's economy will remain strong by virtue of a Balanced Budget and tax cuts. We will also continue our work to increase educational opportunities for our children, preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and reform health care in America.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman of New York's amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans Affairs Equitable Resources Allocation program, or VERA. As the gentleman may know, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and I tried to do the same thing last year. Unfortunately, our efforts were thwarted by the Senate. We settled instead for a General Accounting Office study on the effects of VERA implementation on VISN 3, which covers parts of New York and New Jersey. This report is still not completed. Simply put, it is my feeling that VERA is bad public policy. The program shifts money away from areas with existing elderly veteran populations and into areas with developing veteran populations. In the end, this program has done nothing more than pit veterans in one region of the country against veterans in other regions. Let me tell my colleagues what VERA has meant for the veterans in my district in New Jersey. VERA has meant that security stations in the psychiatric ward at Lyons VA Medical Center are often empty or unmanned. VERA has meant less doctors and less nurses working more overtime to care for patients at Lyons and East Orange Medical Centers. Furthermore, I understand that the FBI and the VA's Inspector General are currently investigating alleged rapes and other alleged mistreatments or abuses of patients. And the worst example of VERA's impact on my district happened last month. A Korean War veteran at Lyons VA Medical Center left his room, unobserved by staff because they are understaffed, and his body was found not until 2 days later, just yards away from the very building where he lived. Why did it take so long? From what I have been told, there was no money to pay the Medical Center's police overtime to search for him. Local authorities evidently were not contacted. Unfortunately, my district is not alone. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who also represents VA medical centers, and others in this room as well have had similar experiences. At Castle Point Medical Center, a pressure ulcer patient in the long-term care unit had maggots living in his wound. A VA Inspector General's report found a large number of flies in his care unit. The VERA program was implemented by the VA with minimal guidance by Congress. The proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to suspend the implementation is on target, because it will give Congress time to evaluate the program's consequences on the quality of health care for all within the system. It is our duty and our responsibility to fully explore the impact of VERA on veterans medical care. Congress needs to exercise more oversight over the VA and VERA to prevent other egregious actions. For example, the leadership in VISN 3 in our area which covers my district returned $20 million to Washington, to the VA last year. Yet patient needs continue to be unmet and patient care suffers. VERA is not the answer to the VA's funding problems. All VERA has done since it was implemented was to create regional battles for diminishing funds. When our Nation was at war, our veterans answered the call and placed their lives on the line to defend ours. They deserve better than a managed care system which often elevates cost savings over quality care. Mr. Chairman, I support the Hinchey amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this hallowed Chamber we are often separated by differences in policy and politics, but today we stand together as a family, bound in honor of two men who will always be remembered in this Chamber and in this Nation as heroes. While the horror of Friday's events will be blurred sadly by still other tragedies and the passage of time, the bravery and devotion to duty of Capitol Hill Police Officers John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut will become as lasting as the very democracy contained within these walls. We will not forget them. This Capitol, the People's House, is honored by the service of each of our Capitol Police Officers, and to all of them today I offer praise and gratitude. By these two fallen heroes the People's House is venerated more so than the presence of any one of us here who have meant liberty, for Officers Gibson and Chestnut surrendered theirs in protection of ours. To the Gibson and Chestnut families, on behalf of New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, my deepest, most profound sympathies go to them. They should know we share their grief and we also share their tremendous pride of these two men who have given their lives in the preservation of the sanctity of our Nation's Capitol.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we all have a frame of reference for Lou Stokes, and nobody could have a frame of reference as wonderful as Mrs. Carrie Meek's frame of reference. When I was in high school and college the Stokes family, and particularly the Stokes brothers, came to my attention as political and civil rights leaders. But only on the television and in the newspapers did I get to know the Stokes family. Quite honestly, I never knew that I would have the privilege of serving with one of those Stokes brothers as a Member of Congress. What an opportunity it has been for me to serve with a remarkable man, someone who, indeed, is a role model for everyone, black or white, rich or poor, an historical figure of the greatest note. And as he said the other day, as was true with Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Walsh, my father had an opportunity to serve with you in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I have been very lucky to have that privilege as the second generation of my family to serve with you. Thank you for your friendship and for your assistance on the VA-HUD committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normalizing trade relations with China and against the resolution. As a Member of Congress who supports increasing our trading exports and increasing American jobs, the only way we can accomplish this is by continuing normal trading relations with China. While there has been much heated rhetoric over this annual decision, the fact is that a vote against extending trade relations with China will indeed cast a serious doubt in the United States and abroad on Congress' capacity to deal constructively with many of the serious issues facing our relationship with China and, for that matter, other nations. The U.S. must send a signal that we will continue to be engaged with China. Engagement has worked and continues to work. Without engagement, we cannot expect any constructive movement towards our mutual goal of protecting human rights or dealing with the Asian financial crisis. Our policy of engagement allows us to press human rights directly with Chinese leaders. Normal trade and economic engagement has continued the process of opening China, exposing Chinese citizens to our politics, our ideas of freedom, and all the things that we hold dear in our country. In addition, China has played an important role in responding to the Asian financial crisis, in part by maintaining its exchange rate. Would these things have happened if we would not have pursued continuing engagement with China? Probably not. An estimated 400,000 jobs depend on exports to China and Hong Kong. In my home State of New Jersey, approximately 5,000 to 8,000 jobs depend upon our continuing trading with China. Our national exports to China have more than tripled. I rise against the resolution and for normal trading relations. China is now our fifth largest trading partner. In New Jersey exports to China amount to $350 million and range from manufacturing products such as electric and electronic equipment to various food and paper products. Revocation of trading status with China would invite retaliation against U.S. exporters and investors, giving a huge edge to other nations, thus hurting U.S. consumers, who pay upwards of half a billion dollars more per year on products because of higher tariffs. Mr. Chairman, I support trade relations with China and improving human rights in China and urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. While there has been much heated rhetoric over this annual decision, the fact is that a vote against extending trade relations with China will cast a serious doubt in the U.S. and abroad on Congress' capacity to deal constructively with many of the serious issues facing our relationship with China and the nations! The U.S. must send a signal that we will continue to be engaged with China. Engagement has worked and continues to work. Without engagement we cannot expect any constructive movement towards our goal of protecting human rights or in dealing with the Asian financial crisis. Our policy of engagement allows us to press human rights directly with China's leaders. Normal trade and economic engagement has continued the process of opening China, exposing Chinese citizens to our politics, ideas and personal freedoms.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as the manager of the bill, to discuss for a moment a program of particular interest to me, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and many others of my colleagues. It is a subject which has broadly been discussed, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As the gentleman knows, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling for the protection of recreation, historic and natural resource lands across the country, is of critical importance to the State of New Jersey and other States across the Nation. I appreciate the historic support offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for this program. Funding levels for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in recent years, however, have resulted in a backlog of unmet acquisition needs at many parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. I am grateful the Congress finally addressed this need last year by appropriating an additional $699 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund funds, and I know that that could not have happened without the support of the gentleman from Ohio. I would like to ask the gentleman a question related to the $699 million contained in last year's Interior Appropriations bill. Of the $699 million appropriated, it is my understanding that $362 million will be used to address high priority land acquisitions and backlog maintenance needs around the country, but the final decision of what projects will be funded has not yet been made. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire, is it the gentleman's intention to finalize the list of acquisitions before the end of the fiscal year 1998?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and would ask his indulgence for one more question. Despite the extraordinary funding for Land and Water Conservation projects, there will continue to be an annual need to address ongoing acquisitions within Federal units. In fiscal year 1999 the administration requested $270 million, which is in line with regular funding levels in recent years, but the House bill was unable to achieve this level this year. I realize the chairman of the subcommittee has worked on under strict budgetary constraints and in fact received a lower 302(b) allocation than last year. However, it is my fervent hope that the conferees from this body can work to arrive at a final Land and Water Conservation level that is at least consistent with the Senate's appropriation. Is it the gentleman's intention to move in this direction?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and look forward to working with him on this important issue.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the comments made in the colloquy between the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). First of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentlewoman from my own State of New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for their leadership relative to getting back from Washington the money that was sent back by the VISN 3 director, Jim Farsetta, from the New York and New Jersey region. Their leadership has been wonderful and entirely appropriate. Only 2 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I learned in my district office in New Jersey from the top brass of that VISN, that Veterans Integrated Service Network, from the lips of James Farsetta, who is the director, as well as Kim Mizarch, who heads up the combined veterans hospitals in New Jersey, that the VA, if that money comes back to New York and New Jersey, that $20 million that was inappropriately sent back to Washington, that the VISN leadership would use that to pay the retirement packages for employees that will be retiring from hospitals in the New York and New Jersey region. That is entirely inappropriate. If, in fact, that money comes back to New York and New Jersey, it ought to be used to increase the health care access and programs, as the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and myself and other members of the delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, would seek. The thought of using that money for retirement packages flies in the face of everything we have learned about the way our system is run and, quite honestly, quality of care issues are definitely in effect in that that money ought to be used for medical care for the veterans, not for retirement packages.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Director Farsetta.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill. And as a member of the committee, I would like to thank the chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and their staffs for their hard work and guidance throughout this year on a whole host of issues, and most particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his extra efforts working with me to improve the Superfund program, which is so important to New Jersey, and the special attention of the gentleman and our staff to issues affecting housing for people with disabilities. Were it not for their hard work and diligence, those two issues, to my mind, would not be adequately addressed. And I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not commend and recognize the years of service of the ranking member the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes). My colleague served with my father in Congress when he was in Congress and was one of the first people to welcome me to this body. His presence in Congress, as well as his service on this committee, will be greatly missed. I have been able to count on his expertise any number of times. His institutional memory is amazing. And his retirement will, without doubt, affect the committee in countless ways. I thank the gentleman for his friendship and advice. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly call to my colleagues' attention page 11 of the committee's report and thank both the ranking member and the chair for their agreeing to include this language. This language highlights the problems with the Veterans Administration's new National Formulary for drugs and medical devices. This is a potentially explosive issue, and Members of Congress better have it on their radar screens. Simply put, the new VA policy is hindering proper medical treatment of veterans by drastically limiting physicians' in the VA choice of medicine from a list, or a formulary, that they can prescribe to treat our veterans. As this new policy is gradually being put into effect, doctors, residents of our VA hospitals, and veterans organizations familiar with the system have relayed some disturbing results. The stories I have heard from our veterans strike right at the quality of life and care issues, including one veteran who was forced to switch his Parkinson's medication and, as a result, is having a recurrence of his Parkinson's symptoms. By putting overly restrictive limitations on which type of a medicine a VA doctor can choose, we are severely restricting access to the newest and most effective medications available. Unfortunately, bureaucrats at the VA are assuming that ``one size fits all'' when it comes to medicine. Well, one medicine does not fit all. I urge all of my colleagues to review this language and listen to what our veterans and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are saying about this issue. This is a critical issue. I support this bill. This particular issue is one that we should be concentrating on.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stokes amendment and would associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. Many of us who represent the northeast have come to value the importance of the brownfields program at the Environmental Protection Agency. The program funded in this bill will give communities with abandoned industrial sites the opportunity to assess these problems more closely and to find alternatives to clean up these sites. Brownfields need to be redeveloped, whether they are in urban centers or elsewhere, and this program goes a long way towards addressing this national problem. Unfortunately, the language contained in this bill would have the unintended consequences of prohibiting any use of the funds for education, outreach or technical assistance. I believe that the National Conference of Mayors, who strongly supports the brownfields program, put it best when they said, ``This provision would take brownfields redevelopment efforts in the wrong direction.'' It is imperative that our communities have access to these funds in order to educate themselves about how to best achieve the goal of rebuilding their communities and putting these sites back into productive commercial use. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule. As a member of the subcommittee which produced the underlying VA-HUD appropriations bill, I do so with no small amount of frustration. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and all members of our subcommittee labored long and hard to produce this bill and, as we produced it, this bill is worthy of support. But this rule is not. This rule fails to protect an important amendment that I offered, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), that was approved by the full Committee on Appropriations. Specifically, our amendment would raise the FHA loan limit to increase opportunities for home ownership as well as increase important science and research programs at the National Science Foundation and for veterans' medical research by $80 million. By passing this rule, Members need to understand that we take away the opportunity for at least 25,000 Americans every year to purchase their first home. Members also need to understand this rule will reduce funding for the National Science Foundation by $70 million and veterans' medical research by $10 million. What I find even more egregious is at the same time this rule circumvents the work of the Committee on Appropriations, it fully protects the rights of the authorizing committee, namely the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, to add the entire text, some 365 pages, of their housing authorization bill to this appropriations bill. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Appropriations is badly undermined by the rule and, most important, it shortchanges important national priorities of home ownership and investment in science and research. This rule deserves to be defeated.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the people of the Borough of Raritan, Somerset County, New Jersey, as they commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the incorporation of their community. While Raritan has been incorporated as a self-governing municipality for only fifty years, its history dates back to the 1600's. The Borough of Raritan is situated on the river bearing the same name, about one mile southwest of Somerville, New Jersey. Early records indicate that in 1846 or 1848 a group of residents gathered to decide upon a name for the village. After some discussion, it was decided to name the village after the Raritan River. As we look back in time, we find a place rich in history and culture. In 1734, George Middaugh, one of the early settlers, built a tavern at the corner of Glaser Avenue and Granetz Place. This tavern became the first meeting place for the colonists of the village of Raritan. One of the oldest historic houses in Somerset County is also located in Raritan. The Central Railroad of New Jersey, with the first bridge built across the Raritan River, provided excellent transportation for the citizens of Raritan. In 1844, there were four houses and a gristmill in Raritan. The first store was opened by J.V.D. Kelly, who owned the gristmill. The first Sunday School was established in 1845 in the blacksmith shop on Somerset Street, owned by John A. Staats. Religious services were held for several years at private residences by members of different denominations until the building of the old school-house on Wall Street. During the ministry of Gulliam Bertholf, and while he was on a missionary tour of northwest New Jersey, the First Reformed Church of Raritan was formed. Records indicate that written material of the church was in the Dutch language and the first record, dated March 8, 1699, is of the baptism of the children of Jeronimus Van Neste, Cornelius Theunissen and Pieter Van Neste. In 1872, a group of people united and formed the Methodist Church and in, 1854, St. Bernard's Church was established. The year 1850 saw the opening of a new post office for the residents of Raritan. The population of the village at that time was approximately 2,240 people. Additionally, the first school-house was 25 by 36 feet, and two stories high. In December 1871, the school and lot were sold to the Methodist Society. This is just a glimpse of Raritan's development as a community. The Borough of Raritan also has a very special place in our nation's history. Raritan has become a landmark of freedom and independence. The Reformed Church is proud of the fact that General George Washington spent the winter of 1779 in a home in Raritan. Another historical fact notes that, in 1778, General Lafayette made his headquarters in the ``Cojeman House'' in Raritan. Raritan gave its all to the World War I effort and the sacrifice of the people was acknowledged by the United States Congress when they decided that a ship be built and named after the Borough. The S.S. Natirar (Raritan spelled backwards), was launched at Wilmington, Delaware in 1920. This was a high honor bestowed upon a town, but Raritan received another distinction when President Warren G. Harding signed the Treaty of Raritan at the home of United States Senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen of Raritan on July 20, 1921, officially ending World War I. During World War II, thousands of citizens from Raritan also served with distinction and honor and one in particular is remembered each year. Marine Sergeant John Basilone was awarded the first Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic actions on Guadalcanal. He was later killed in Iwo Jima in 1945. Today, his memory is celebrated by the annual Basilone Parade, held each September. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues, in congratulating the citizens of the Borough of Raritan as they celebrate this historic milestone.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4103, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, for all his hard work on this bill. He has made tough decisions in order to provide funding for our armed forces and for the equipment they need to protect our Nation. I also want commend the staff of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who assisted Chairman Young in putting this legislation together. According to both the Defense authorizing and appropriations committees, spending on defense has decreased for the 14th straight year, in real terms. Despite the end of the cold war earlier this decade, we still find American troops deployed across the globe, from Eastern Europe to Asia to Africa. In fact, I was recently told by one Army officer that there has been a 300 percent increase in deployments at the same time there has been a 40 percent shrinkage in the size of the Army. As a result, troops are deployed longer, maintenance and repair work is delayed, and research and development initiatives are taking a substantial hit. American companies are learning to do more with less, and our military has become more cost-efficient as well. However, there is a point at which we can only do less with less. If the President keeps committing our troops to peacekeeping missions overseas, and continues to freeze funding for the Department of Defense, we could begin to compromise the safety and readiness of our armed forces. When the President sends our military overseas, money is diverted from other important initiatives, including research and development. As we try to prepare and equip our troops for the battlefields of the future, countless engineers are working in government labs and research facilities to develop the weapons, the ammunition, the vehicles and the technology our armed forces need to defend the United States. The military's research and development is critical to keeping our men and women in uniform safe and well-equipped wherever they serve, whether home or abroad. Further compromising the military's, and especially the Army's, ability to provide our troops with the tools they need on the battlefield are the cuts proposed under the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. These QDR cuts threaten the very fabric of our research and defense infrastructure. Not only will they decimate the current corps of engineers working on sensitive mission-critical projects, they also hamper the Army's ability to recruit and train the future engineering ``brain trust'' needed to help develop the next generations of military hardware and equipment. If these QDR cuts are implemented, it would have a detrimental effect on mission-critical projects such as the Crusader field Artillery System. This reach and development effort will provide the Army of the future with much-needed heavy artillery support. I am pleased that the Committee has provided full funding for this program which is located at Picatinny Arsenal in my district. The Crusader system, which will consist of both a self-propelled, fully automated 155m Howitzer and a resupply vehicle, will provide efficient, accurate and reliable fire support to our troops on the battlefield. Unlike the existing Paladin tank, the Crusader will have a fully-automated loading capability. The Crusader will be faster than the Paladin, and its guns are more accurate at a much farther distance. In recent tests, the Crusader's gun was able to fire an impressive 10 rounds per minute for three to six minutes, without malfunctioning. And, furthermore, less military personnel are needed to man the Crusader. I am especially pleased because much of the research and development work on the Crusader project is being done in the laboratories of Picatinny Arsenal in the 11th Congressional District. Since the Revolutionary War, Picatinny has been providing our armed forces with ammunition. Today, they may no longer manufacture conventional ammunition, but the dedicated and innovative workforce at Picatinny are developing other tools to meet the munition and firepower needs for both Army XXI and the Army After Next. From ``smart ammunitions'' to the soldiers' hand-held weapon of the future, Picatinny has been recognized and awarded for their research and development efforts and contributions to our military capabilities. I was recently told that Picatinny is responsible for 1400 of the 3400 weapons systems developed under TACOM, the Tank Automotive And Armaments Command which oversees much of the Army's research and development initiatives. Another important research and development project funded in this bill is the soldiers' weapon of the future, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW. The lightweight OICW can, in the near future, replace three existing, divergent weapons currently in use by the military: M16A2 rifles, M4 carbines and M203 grenade launchers. It will have the ability to accurately shoot both hidden and moving targets. With the flip of a switch, soldiers will be able to change from the munitions-firing weapon to a conventional rifle. The two weapons can be separated, and the lower barrel can be used as a stand-alone gun. This work is done at Picatinny using the most advanced techniques and technologies, hence these dollars will continue this development. Mr. Chairman, every day our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to defend us. They deserve to have the tools they need to protect us, and should be compensated for their work. We cannot forget our debt to them, and we must work to provide them with the supply they need to do their jobs. We owe them nothing less. Those in the civilian work force at Picatinny, likewise, do their part to keep our young men and women safe wherever they are stationed, where wars may be fought, with the best equipment and technology possible. Today we vote to provide funds, support our soldiers and all those who prepare and equip them. An affirmative vote assures that this critical work continues.