Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of all women in the health care field. As the health care industry continues to change dramatically and rapidly, these professionals remain steadfast in their dedication to the well-being of the aged and infirm. They work hard to keep up with the changing market, while unfailingly remaining committed to helping the sick. And no matter what their position, everyone contributes in an essential way. I honor the efforts made by all women in all roles in providing the best quality work toward meeting the needs of patients. When I read today the Northern New Jersey Visiting Nurses Association's newsletter, I was reminded of the challenges facing our health care workers. Their mission: Keeping people healthy by providing quality community health service by skilled and caring individuals and promoting the health and well-being of the entire community. Nursing in particular demands such a broad array of skills and knowledge combined with attributes of compassion and commitment. From many of the health care professionals with whom I am acquainted, I know of the extraordinary job they do at continually re-educating themselves in medicine, disease, and an ever-changing, high-technology environment, while never losing sight of their most important responsibility--the health and well-being of their patients. This sense of duty is astonishing. I was recently told of a home health aide who during the January blizzard, when so many of us were home and safe, walked a couple of miles through 5-foot snowdrifts to care for her patient and walked home. I was told of the health workers who stayed 2 or 3 consecutive days working extra shifts at the hospital to meet the needs of patients. Mr. Speaker, I applaud them. These are truly multitalented individuals who fill an essential role in our communities. Their job not only requires strong leadership and skill, but also a heart and soul unfamiliar to many of us. Today I rise to honor them--those individuals who help us stay healthy and serve us when in need.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2276, the Federal Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996. This legislation assures that an independent Federal agency will assume the current powers of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], for aviation safety, air traffic control, airway modernization, and yes, aircraft noise mitigation. As a Nation we are very dependent on aviation for movement of our citizens and movement of many goods and products. We need an agency that is responsible to the aviation industry, air travelers, as well as all taxpayers across our Nation. In my view and the view of many aviation professionals, the stonewalling and arrogance which characterize the FAA's response to noise complaints, reflects the culture, attitudes, and philosophy of its parent bureaucracy, the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT]. Making the FAA independent of the massive DOT bureaucracy, as well as the creation of the Management Advisory Committee and the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, will enable the FAA to better represent the taxpayers. In a streamlined and independent agency, no decisionmaker will be able to hide behind layers of DOT bureaucracy. The three members of the Federal Aviation Board, who will administer the FAA, will be more visible and publicly accountable. My colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Bob Franks, and his constituents, have experienced the same frustrations as I have with the FAA bureaucracy in the DOT. His successful effort to include in this legislation the creation of an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman directly addresses the needs for the taxpayers to have an advocate for their concerns regarding the very important issue of aircraft noise mitigation. The success of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman will depend on the degree to which the FAA changes its approach toward communicating with taxpayers and Congress. The establishment of the FAA as an independent agency provides a positive starting point. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues support H.R. 2276 and give the American taxpayers a more responsive and efficient Federal Aviation Administration.

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 country. 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 id 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 Gerrit 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 background 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 this 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 41 applicants. Nominations included 20 to the Naval Academy, 10 to the Military Academy, 6 to the Air Force Academy, and 1 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 Vietnam, 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 generation before them. They still seek 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 1995, 11th Congressional District, New Jersey Name, Hometown, High School, and Academy Justin White, Basking Ridge, Ridge, Naval. Robert Vuolo, Morris Plains, Delbarton, Naval. Renuka Vijayanathan, N. Caldwell, West Essex, Naval. Kevin Orisini, Sparta, Sparta, Naval. Meghan Neumann, Succassunna, Roxbury, Military. John Eure, Rockaway, Morris Catholic, Naval. Michael Kester, Bridgewater, Bridgewater/Raritan, Naval. Patrick Nelson, Hackettstown, Bridgeton Academy, Naval. Brian Fitzgerald, Mendham, West Morris Mendham, Naval. Daniel Figenshu, Madison, Delbarton, Naval. Richard Evans, Flanders, Mt. Olive, Naval. Robert Poggio, Long Valley, West Morris Central, Naval. Cory Winer, Wharton, Choate Rosemary Hall, Military. Anthony Bruno, East Hanover, Hanover Park, Naval. Louis Amorosa, Somerville, Immaculata, Naval. Jason Corbisiero, Rockaway, Morris Catholic, Naval. Andrew Gassman, Chatham, Oratory Prep, Naval. Damon Finaldi, Florham Park, Hanover Park Regional, Naval. Frederic Haeussler, Florham Park, Choate Rosemary Hall, Naval. John Neuhart, Chatham, Ohio State ROTC, Naval. Mary Faulkner, Long Valley, West Morris Central, Air Force. Brent Kruel, Dover, Randolph, Air Force. Jeffrey Melitski, Bernardsville, Bernardsville, Air Force. Hunter Lonsberry, Morristown, Morristown Beard, Air Force. Timothy Larkin, Long Valley, West Morris Central, Merchant Marine. James Wong, Randolph, Randolph, Military. Scott Magaziner, Randolph, Randolph, Air Force. Mark Chiarvalloti, Rockaway, Penn State USMA Prep., Military. Victor Camaya, Pompton Plains, Pequannock, Military. Andrew Moan, Far Hills, Pingry, Naval. Louis Kuo, Parsippany, Parsippany, Military. Michael DeCicco, Raritan, Bridgewater/Raritan, Military. David Esposito, Caldwell, James Caldwell, Military. Joel Tompkins, Chatham, Chatham, Military. Tatiana Kazdoba, Denville, Villa Walsh Academy, Naval. Shane Rowe, Dover, New Mexico Military Institute, Military. Thomas Rogers, Rockaway, Morris Knolls, Air Force.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 349 and in strong support of flow control. New Jersey is facing a crisis situation that can only be averted by swift passage of this legislation. A recent court decision--the Carbone decision of May 1994--has placed New Jersey's waste management system in chaos. Currently, 17 of 21 New Jersey counties have public debt tied directly to flow control and more than $2 billion in outstanding debt backed by flow-control bonds. This debt was incurred in compliance with a State mandate for each waste region to become self-sufficient in managing its waste. While the Supreme Court has ruled that flow control is an undue interference with interstate commerce, the legislation that the House is voting on today allows flow control only in jurisdictions that exercised it, designated the waste facility to receive the waste, and actually sold bonds to finance the facility prior to the May 1994 Carbone decision. This is expected to apply to less than 20 percent of the solid waste market. And, once the bonds are paid off, flow control ends. This gives densely populated States like New Jersey the opportunity to regroup and plan for the redirection of their municipal waste streams. Concern over the omission of coverage for construction and demolition debris language has been expressed by the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, and I will continue to work for the inclusion of these provisions which are important to Morris County and other New Jersey counties. However, in the meantime, I strongly support passage of this legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the life of George Dykstra, known as Mr. Sparta to people in the town he called home. George Dykstra lived a great American life: In good times and bad, he was always there to serve his family, his neighbors, and his country. Born in Fulton, IL, in 1921, George grew up in Prospect Park, NJ. He served his country in the U.S. Marine Corps for 7 years and received a Purple Heart while serving in the Pacific Theater as a sergeant during World War II, which included action in Guadalcanal and the Philippines. After the war, George finally settled down and moved to the township of Sparta in the heart of Sussex County, NJ. Little did George know that he would dedicate the next 50 years of his life to serving the citizens of this small, mountainous town. Whether it was the Sparta VFW Post, the North Jersey Midget Football League, flood victims in Wilkes Barre, PA, or planting flowers in front of the municipal building, George Dykstra was there to lead the way or just lend a helping hand. According to Monsignor Charles C. Cassidy, the retired pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church in Sparta, ``everything he did was for someone else.'' George also made significant contributions through his service in municipal government. He was a member of the Sparta Township Council for 18 years, including four terms as mayor. It was through this venue that I first met George and came to know him as a straight-shooting, thoughtful, and caring man. Whether it was keeping tabs on the Superfund sight at A.O. Polymer or acting as a sounding board for local veterans as a valued member of my Veterans Round Table, George didn't tinker around the edges, he always got right to the point. He was someone I could trust. Sparta Councilwoman Dolores Blackburn put it perfectly when she said that ``he cannot be replaced. The things he did were well-intentioned, whether you agreed with him or not. He was our local color.'' I could not possibly name all of the organizations that George Dykstra was involved in during his years in Sparta, he was literally a part of everything that went on in the town. According to Pat, his wife of 22 years, ``he just loved Sparta. He always wanted to stay here.'' David Ferguson worked along side George as Sparta's township manager and wholeheartedly agrees, stating that ``He is `Mr. Sparta.' I don't know anyone who cared more and loved Sparta more than George. He was the most dedicated individual I have ever known toward his community. He had a heart of gold and we all loved him.'' His fellow councilman, Michael Devine, aptly described him as ``straightforward, uncomplicated and reliable as a man could be.'' Sparta always counted on George to come through for the community and he never let them down--he was a sure thing. George Dykstra had a way with everyone--even reporters. Carole Hartman covered George for 4 years with the Sparta Independent and the New Jersey Herald and found out quickly that he was not like most other politicians. ``George shot from the hip. The words `no comment' were not in his vocabulary.'' Of course covering George was no easy job, he was always on the move trying to beautify the town in some way or keep tabs on what was going on at police headquarters. And George was no stranger to controversy. As Carole Hartman said, ``George didn't care if he was politically correct. Even if you disagreed with George, you always had to realize that his one and only motivation was plain and simple: He only wanted what was best for Sparta.'' My sympathy goes out to George's wife Pat, their 6 children, 11 grandchildren and his 3 sisters. While we all mourn George's death, his family, the township of Sparta and the people that George touched in his lifetime should all feel a sense of pride for having known a man of such uncommon character. George Dykstra lived a great American life and his legacy will live on forever.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of both the rule and the resolution. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies that provides funding for our veterans, I want to make it clear, we did our job, we passed our bill, we provided for our Nation's veterans. For some to suggest otherwise, I think is an outrage. Surely the President must have well understood when he vetoed the VA- HUD bill on Monday that in fact he was jeopardizing health benefit checks for our veterans. Frankly, we would not be here today had the President signed the VA-HUD bill and these other appropriations bills. Without the support of the President, we are taking this necessary action to honor our financial commitment to our veterans. Our veterans deserve nothing less. We need to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act of 1995, which ends the practice of punishing older Americans who want to work. Earlier this year, I promised the 1 million working, older Americans financial relief from the punitive Social Security earnings limit which is wrongly imposed on them. H.R. 2684, fulfills my promise by increasing the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. Today, many people across the Nation want or need to work beyond the age of 64 because a fixed Social Security income alone cannot provide adequate financial resources. This Nation has a tremendous amount of talent available in its older Americans. Younger people in the workplace gain a lot through the experience of these individuals who continue to work. Simply put, lifting the earnings limit is the right thing to do because it is good for all of us. When fully phased in, the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act will exempt about 50 percent of the people who currently have to comply with the earnings limit. These individuals have worked hard to pay into the Social Security trust fund. This legislation keeps our promise to lift the earnings limit for older people so they can continue to contribute to our Nation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA]. My bill would remove the authority for contracting oversight from the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency and place it solely under the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Speaker, this change makes sense given the expertise of each agency. The Army Corp of Engineers is far better suited to handle contracting work and oversight of construction of the design and remedy at a Superfund site than the more technical, environmental orientation of the EPA. The reason why I am introducing this legislation today is in direct response to an incident that recently happened in my district during an already lengthy and tumultuous cleanup. Hopefully, passage of this legislation will prevent future situations, such as the one I am about to describe, from happening again in the future. The asbestos dump site in Millington, NJ, is comprised of two residential farms and part of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Reserve. It contains large amounts of asbestos that was dumped on the property. On one of these two residential sites, the homeowners--a family of five--were involved in a lengthy cleanup with the EPA and had been relocated several times, for months at the time. The EPA had contracted out for the construction of the design and the contractor then hired a subcontractor, with a less than perfect track history, to complete construction of the design. The EPA subcontractors, instead of bringing in clean fill to top the asbestos on the family's property, brought in contaminated soil from another site. This horrendous mistake has added additional years to cleanup and the family's nightmare. Mr. Speaker, again, I believe that the Army Corp of Engineers is far better equipped to handle the details of the physical cleanup of these Superfund sites, and to oversee more effectively contracting work. At many sites, such a mistake would add only years and costs to taxpayers for cleanup. In this case, it added not only time and money, but additional grief for a family wanting only to have their home and property cleaned up to a livable standard. I believe that my bill would prevent more situations like these and improve the efficiency of site cleanups.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, for me, the most important priority is to support our servicemen and women. The President has made the decision, and while I am angry that he made it without consultation with Congress and the American people, we need to back them 100 percent. Our actions tonight should send this message loudly and clearly to them as they prepare to go. Because 25 years ago, I was one of them in Vietnam. I was sent on a mission that bitterly divided this country and this House. But I learned then, as I know now, that our troops deserve nothing less than the undivided support of this House and all the resources necessary to support their mission. Please support the Buyer resolution. We have all seen vivid and shockingly graphic pictures from Bosnia, but my visit there made the issue intensely human. I spoke with our troops on their way to the region from Germany, met with the Balkan leaders, wore a flak jacket, and took a bumpy bus ride into war-torn Sarajevo. No doubt, watching CNN and seeing things live are completely different. No longer is this a civil war in a faraway land, it is 32,000 American troops going into a historically troubled region as peacemakers. President Clinton made that decision. He made it without congressional approval, but as Commander in Chief he has the authority to do this. In fact, it became clear that he made this decision long ago, since we learned from our troops that their training for this mission began more than 6 to 8 months prior to the Dayton peace talks. We are going to Bosnia, and in some areas our soldiers are already there. On November 30, I was selected to join a bipartisan congressional delegation to survey the Bosnian situation. Our trip was organized in response to concerns in Congress that the White House had not kept us informed of this major policy decision in a proper and timely manner. Indeed, State Department and Pentagon officials were dispatched to Capitol Hill just 1 day before we boarded our plane to Serbia. We went with objectives--ours was a true fact-finding mission. Before leaving, we were briefed by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the chief U.S. negotiator at the Dayton peace accords. We were to meet with Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian leaders to solidify their support for the peace accord and to get their assurances that United States forces would be protected. Our foremost objective was to verify that our troops would have the training, equipment, and resources necessary to defend and protect themselves. We met with Serbian President Milosevic, Croatian President Tudjman and Bosnian President Izetbegovic. They remain committed to the peace agreement, pledged their support of protection for U.S. troops, and shared the fact that their citizens were truly weary from war. They said Americans were considered to be even-handed and that our military presence was vital for peace. Despite their words, they remain suspect due to past broken promises, and because facts show that these were indeed the very warmakers that caused 250,000 deaths in over 3\1/2\ years of ethnic and religious strife. As President Reagan used to say, ``trust but verify.'' Our trip to Sarajevo is one I'll never forget. We landed at the airport which was little more than a small pitted concrete platform surrounded by sandbags and bunkers. After an escort of U.N. armored vehicles was assembled, we boarded a bus and headed toward the city. We went through four Bosnian Serb armed checkpoints and saw defused land mines along the roadside which had previously lined our path. Along our well-protected route, the pictures came to life--buildings blown apart, people milling around, and everywhere burned out buses, trolleys, and cars. The 8-mile trip took almost 45 minutes. What was left of the architectural beauty of structures from the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the towering high-rise buildings built during Marshall Tito's 30-year-reign, was now a twisted combination of bombed-out building shells, collapsed factories, or acres of roofless and pockmarked houses. Sarajevo is undoubtedly a scarred survivor. I remember, too, the stories of no food, heat, or fresh water, and the chilling testimonials of snipers killing pedestrians in the street and marketplace. There were constant reminders of the 2\1/2\ million refugees who were either burned and bombed out of their houses and communities, or simply fled the area with terror. After this eye-opener, we flew to Naples, Italy, for a briefing by the U.S. Southern Commander of NATO forces, Adm. Leighton Smith. He told us that our troops would be able to defend themselves, would be fully equipped, and that the military mission was limited to a year. ``American troops would be enforcing a peace'', he said, ``not fighting a war.'' He was honest, however, and reminded us that this mission was not without risk. Our final stop was the most moving--meeting with our young soldiers in Germany who will go to Bosnia in mid-December. I had lunch with two soldiers from New Jersey, one a very young woman, perhaps early 20's, from Burlington County and the other a slightly older man from Bergen County. Both were professional, well-trained, and motivated. Still, I sensed apprehension--the same apprehension I felt 25 years ago as a young private headed to Vietnam. This encounter placed everything in perspective and literally put a human face on this situation. For me, the most important priority for us is to support our servicemen and women. They are Americans, with over 80,000 family members on the homefront. No question, the President should better define our national interest in Bosnia and explain what our total commitment will be. I feel he has an obligation to the families of our troops and all Americans to outline the specific objectives of this mission. But while we can argue about his policy, which I do remain skeptical about, the fact is that the decision has been made and American soldiers, our soldiers, are going. And since they are going, we need to support them 100 percent. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, for me the most important priority is to support our servicemen and women. The President has made his decision. While I am angry that he has made it without consultation to Congress and with the American people, we need to back up our troops 100 percent. Our actions tonight should send this message loudly and clearly to them as they prepare to go, because 25 years ago I was one of them in Vietnam. I was sent on a mission that bitterly divided this country and this House, but I learned then, as I know now, that our troops deserve nothing less than the undivided support of this House and all the resources necessary to support their mission. Please support the Buyer resolution.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement for a second time. I again thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, for yielding me this time. He deserves credit for doing a terrific job on a tough but very essential bill. As I said last week on the House floor during consideration of this conference agreement, we have done the best we could, given our allocation. We have prioritized our Nation's needs. No one ever said it would be simple balancing our Federal budget, but I believe it has been done responsibly. It is easy for those in the minority to say that we need more money. But the fact is, what we need to do is to live within our means. We have spent our allocation, and there is no more money left. That is why I was surprised when this conference report was recommitted with instructions to add more money to veterans medical care. This program, unlike the majority of the other programs included in this bill, received nearly a $400 million increase, an increase of $400 million. Yesterday in conference committee the question was asked of the minority, where should the increased funding for veterans medical care come from? No suggestions were given, and the reason no suggestions were given was because they know that in order to govern, to really balance the Federal budget, and to serve people's needs, we all have to make tough choices. A delicate balance has been a reached in this conference agreement, and taking funding from one program and giving it to another would disrupt this essential balance. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. We have done our job. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Postal Service Debt Reduction and Truth in Budgeting Act, which will commit the Postal Service to a 7-year-debt reduction plan. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Congress and the American people have been kept in the dark regarding the finances of the U.S. Postal Service. Very few Americans know that the Postal Service is servicing a debt of more than $7 billion. What they do know is that their mail is not delivered on time and that the cost of a first class stamp jumped by 3 cents last year. This situation needs to be changed. Even before I was elected to Congress, I was critical of the Postal Service's lack of budgetary integrity and its overall service. Their unwillingness to tackle their multibillion dollar debt has convinced me that real, fundamental reform is needed. Since last year, Postmaster General Runyon has taken some encouraging steps toward fiscal responsibility. Much to everyone's surprise, the Postal Service ran a surplus this year of $1.8 billion; only the seventh time in 25 years it has managed to operate in the black. However, the Postal Service still lacks a serious plan that holds it fiscally accountable to Congress and our Nation's taxpayers. Despite their $7.3 billion debt and the rare opportunity to reduce it with their $1.8 billion surplus, Postmaster General Runyon, recently gave bonuses to 1,000 senior postal executives for a year when customers faced a 10 percent hike in the price of a first class stamp. It is these actions that require me to introduce this bill. Mr. Runyon seems to be doing little more than introducing short-term gimmicks and rate hikes to absorb the escalating costs of running an increasingly inefficient monopoly. The Postal Service is utilizing a good portion of its administrative, labor and capital resources on projects that have nothing to do with the agency's primary responsibility: delivering the mail on time. Recently, the Postal Service announced that it was entering into a joint venture with a private company to offer prepaid telephone calling cards, a service already provided by the private sector. Mr. Runyon should have the agency concentrating on delivering the mail. The legislation I am introducing will require the Postmaster General to follow a fiscally responsible course that the American people have demanded from their Government led by the 104th Congress. Specifically, it would require the Postmaster General to submit a 7-year plan to put the Postal Service's fiscal house in order. It would also require an annual, in-depth accounting of its budget to show which postal programs and practices are working and which ones need to be reformed or eliminated. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Postal Service Debt Reduction and Truth in Budgeting Act. Let us include the U.S. Postal Service in our efforts to create a smaller, smarter Government that is accountable to the American taxpayers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Nicholas Saccamano, of the 11th Congressional District, who has given of himself for the betterment of the people of New Jersey for more than 40 years. This Friday evening, Nick will be honored by his many friends and colleagues upon his retirement from AT&T Bell Laboratories after 42 years of service. During that time, Nick has become a leader in business, and so many community activities. Nick has always been involved in Morris County, where he and his wife Betty make their home. He is a champion of the finest charitable causes in our communities. Nick is known to be loyal, persistent and a leader who get things accomplished. Perhaps the best illustration of Nick's personal commitment to those in need was when a seriously ill young man was in need of a bone marrow transplant. It was Nick who, together with the young man's friends and family, took action and personally mobilized the support and resources necessary to help save the young man's life. And so it is not surprising that Nick's good works have gained him the respect, admiration and deep friendship of the residents of Morris County and all of New Jersey. My wonderful predecessor, Congressman Dean Gallo, considered Nick one of our best and so do I. I would be hard pressed to list all of Nick Saccamano's accomplishments and special citations here today. However, I would like to mention a few to give you an idea of how widely involved Nick is in our lives. Nick has been named the Man of the Year by the Dope Open Inc. and the Morris County Police Chief's Association and was named Citizen of the Year by the Holmdel Policeman's Benevolent Association. He serves on the executive board of the Morris County United Way, as well as receiving their John J. O'Connor Award. Nick is also involved in employer ridersharing programs in Morris, Monmouth, and Ocean counties; the Two Hundred Club in Morris, Monmouth, Ocean, and Union counties and is a member of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely doubt that Nick Saccamano will be slowing down any time soon. On the contrary, retiring from Bell Laboratories should give him even more time to do what he does so well: being people together to help others. So today, Mr. Speaker, I join with all my New Jersey Colleagues and this House in congratulating Nick Saccamano for his many years of service to all residents of our area.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lewis, Congressman Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work in producing this compromise agreement. This conference report contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's veterans, protects and preserves our environment, helps house the needy and disabled, and moves scientific research and discovery forward. As Chairman Lewis has said it has been a difficult task balancing these needs against the critical need to balance our Federal budget. I believe that it has been done responsibly. In total, this report provides $80.6 billion for these important programs. That number is $9.6 billion less than last year and $894 million more than the House-passed bill. This action shows that we have truly compromised in order to produce a sound piece of legislation. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were able to increase the Superfund program by $163 million for a total of $1.16 billion. In addition, this agreement removes the December 31 ``drop dead'' date for the Superfund program. By removing this provision, we will be allowing this important program to operate while the authorization committee acts on reforming the Superfund law. Representing a State with more Superfund sites than any other, I want to thank Chairman Lewis for these actions and for realizing the importance of keeping work at all current Superfund sites moving forward. This funding increase brings the total number very close to what the program received last year. This conference agreement also removes the controversial 17 EPA riders that were included in the House-passed bill. I am particularly happy that the clean water riders were removed. As I have always said, these riders should not have been included in this bill. We should give the authorization committees a chance to fine-tune the Clean Water Act, instead of prematurely halting many of the programs that have been working under this Act. While I do not agree with all the reductions in this conference agreement, I do believe that it is time to stop throwing good money after bad and start focusing our limited resources toward programs that work. Three such programs are at HUD, section 202, Senior Housing, and 811, Disabled Housing, and HOPWA, Housing Opportunity for People With AIDS. These programs have a proven track record and have worked. While the House-passed bill consolidated these three programs under one account, the conference agreement keeps these accounts separate allowing each of them to run independent of one another. This is something I supported and worked in conference to achieve. I would have liked to provide more funding, however, the committee agreed to freeze all these accounts at the current level. As regards scientific research and development, I am pleased that this agreement recognizes that our Nation's future depends on properly educating all Americans so that we can continue to be number one in developing and producing various technologies. New Jersey is already the home to the brightest and best in both the public and private sector. This report dedicates itself to renewing our Nation's [[Page H 13755]] commitment to science by providing new resources, both fiscal and physical. This report also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly half of our allocation supports these activities and the committee increased medical care above the current year by $337 million. This should be adequate funding to keep all our veterans who rely on the VA for medical care fully supported. I would also like to comment on the behavior of VA Secretary Brown who has politicized this budget process. Under the guise of so-called ``free speech'' he has needlessly alarmed veterans throughout the Nation. As a veteran myself, I am insulted by his actions. Mr. Speaker, we have drafted a sound agreement and I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today, November 17, Congress will approve a historic plan which balances the Federal budget in 7 years. This is the critical debate about the future of the United States--are we going to balance the budget or aren't we? I am as frustrated as anyone over the temporary shutdown of some Federal agencies. Indeed, this gridlock adds yet another reason for good citizens to lose faith in government. Nonetheless, I was elected to keep a number of promises, the most important being balancing the budget. We are actually doing this, not just talking about it. The way to restore faith in our system of government is to keep promises-- especially this one. America has a clear choice: we can continue to spend beyond our means, borrow from our children's futures, and run up the public debt over $5 trillion. Or, we can balance the budget with reasonable changes in programs, slow exploding costs of various entitlements, root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and yes, determine whether government must do everything for everyone. Having listened to thousands of people in our area and answered more than 25,000 letters, I think I know the answer: balance the budget, carefully and with compassion. When the rhetorical fog lifts, America will see an accurate and complete picture of our vision for this country. We are making fundamental changes to the Federal Government. We will balance the budget, reform welfare, and preserve Medicare and Medicaid, all the time spending more, not less. That's right, despite all the talk about cuts, the Government will spend $300 billion more over the next 7 years and still balance the budget by the year 2002. There is nothing extreme about keeping the public trust. I am here in Washington, keeping my promises to the people of the 11th Congressional District who have written and called in saying ``hang tough,'' ``hold your ground,'' balance the budget. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of passing this historic legislation to save Medicare from bankruptcy and preserve and protect the program for current and future beneficiaries. There is no issue more important to elderly Americans than their health care security. Medicare gives beneficiaries peace of mind every time they go to the doctor or spend a few days in the hospital. That is why, when I received the alarming news in April that Medicare was headed toward bankruptcy, I began meeting and corresponding with people throughout district 11. I held 14 town meetings to listen to constituents, met with senior citizen clubs in 5 counties, reached out to our health care providers, met with hundreds of individuals in my office, and reviewed thousands of letters and telephone messages on this matter. Our dialog enabled me to work constructively over the past eight months with my colleagues to ensure that the citizens of New Jersey will only benefit from modernizing the 30-year-old, government-run program. I am proud of what we have accomplished. The Medicare Preservation Act saves Medicare from bankruptcy and provides elderly Americans with the same choices as individuals in the private sector have to meet their health care needs. And make no mistake about it, spending on each beneficiaries will increase--from $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002. I have read in the newspaper and heard on television some disturbing and often erroneous reports about our Medicare Preservation Act. I have been outraged by the tactics being employed by some politicians in Washington and by groups outside Washington that are funding their television and radio commercials. It is unconscionable that they would resort to distortions and half-truths in an attempt to frighten Medicare beneficiaries about the future of a program they have come to rely on to pay their doctor and hospital bills. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is teetering on bankruptcy, and it is important that we act now to preserve, protect and strengthen this vital program. Medicare costs have been soaring. Medicare alone now consumes 11 percent of the entire Federal budget and is increasing at the rate of 10.5 percent a year. That's more than three times the rate of inflation and seven time faster than the 65 and older population is growing. They've been paying taxes all their entire life to support the Medicare program. But the fact is that retirees are collecting far more in benefits from Medicare than they actually paid in taxes to support the system. An individual who turns 65 this year will, on average, receive $129,000 more in benefits from Medicare than he or she contributed to the system. Although this imbalance is certainly not the beneficiary's fault, it helps to explain why Medicare is in dire financial condition. Next year, for the first time in history, Medicare will pay out more money on seniors' hospital bills than it collected through payroll taxes.The reality is Medicare is teetering on bankruptcy. Unless some action is taken now to control skyrocketing costs the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, which pays hospital expenses for America's seniors, will be bankrupt in just 7 years. It's important to know that is not a prediction made by Congress, it is the conclusion reached by the trustees responsible for maintaining the financial stability of the Medicare program--including three members of President Clinton's cabinet. And there is another, equally important crisis that must be addressed--the financial condition of Medicare part B, which covers doctor bills and lab tests. Spending on this portion of Medicare has increased by 53 percent in just the past 5 year. If nothing is done, spending on part B will actually double over the next 7 years from $37 billion to $74 billion. The Medicare trustees have called this rate of growth in spending on part B ``clearly unsustainable.'' Under our plan, part B spending still creases to $6,800, just a slower rate. Against this threat of imminent bankruptcy, our opponents want you to believe that our plan to save Medicare is actually aimed at paying for tax cuts. They're wrong. Enven if there were no plan in Congress to provide tax relief to middle-class families, the Medicare Board of Trustees confirm the need to take immediate action to preserve Medicare for today's seniors and those approaching retirement age. Remember, the Medicare trust fund is financed exclusively through every worker's payroll tax. There is no plan, not even a suggestion, to cut the payroll tax and thereby reduce the money available to Medicare. But even leaving the payroll tax alone, Medicare will be bankrupt in just seven years. As the Washington Post stated in a recent editorial: The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think that's wrong. [[Page E 2209]] And as for the tax cuts, they have already been paid for with savings achieved by reducing the bloated Federal bureaucracy, targeting waste and inefficiency, and transferring money and responsibility for programs back to the States. While our opponents accuse us of cutting Medicare, the truth is Medicare spending will increase. There will be no cut in Medicare spending. Under our plan, spending for each Medicare beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in 7 years. That's a 54-percent increase in Medicare spending! In total, we'll be spending $700 billion more on Medicare over the next 7 years than we did during the past 7 years. Let me discuss the key elements in our plan to save Medicare and make it better. Traditional Medicare will be preserved. Any beneficiary wishing to stay in the existing Medicare program can do so. There will be no increase in copayments and no increase in deductibles. They have an absolute right under this plan to stay in the existing Medicare program. That right cannot be taken away, and no beneficiary will be required to change their health care coverage. Most importantly, for those who choose to stay in traditional Medicare, they can continue to be able to choose any doctor and hospital they wish. In addition to preserving the right to remain in traditional Medicare, our plan offers new, additional choices for elderly Americans. These options will include an opportunity to choose from a number of different coordinated care plans, ranging from health maintenance organizations to preferred provider organizations to medical savings accounts. In New Jersey there are very few choices of health care plans for older people such as coordinated care plans. But in some States, coordinated care has become a popular alternative to traditional Medicare. In California, for example, fully 34 percent of seniors have chosen some form of coordinated care. These seniors have found that coordinated care greatly reduces their out-of-pocket expenses. Enrollment in one of these plans has enabled many retirees to stop purchasing expensive private MediGap insurance, which currently costs around $1,200 a year. In addition, coordinated care plans usually provide services not available under traditional Medicare including prescription drugs, dental care and eye glasses. Let me emphasize that no one will be forced to join any of these coordinated care plans, but they will be available to those who prefer this kind of health care protection. Remember, the existing Medicare coverage beneficiaries now have, will continue to be available. One question repeatedly raised at my town meetings was why not save Medicare by combating fraud and abuse. The Medicare Preservation Act contains strong measures in the fraud and abuse area, including stricter penalties on Medicare providers who defraud the system. Unfortunately, these savings alone are not enough to avert financial calamity. Our plan aggressively attacks waste, fraud, and abuse, which is robbing the Medicare system of at least $18 billion a year. The beneficiaries of Medicare, are the best weapon we have in combatting this waste. But the current system makes it extremely difficult to uncover excessive or unnecessary hospital or medical charges. That's because right now there is no requirement that the beneficiary receive a detailed explanation of all the hospital, doctor and lab expenses billed to Medicare on your behalf. Under our plan, they will have a new tool to detect waste, fraud and abuse. Our plan requires every health care provider to give a copy of all bills they send to Medicare for payment. The beneficiaries will finally have a legal right to examine every doctor and hospital bill. In addition, our plan offers a financial reward to any senior who uncovers any unnecessary or excessive Medicare charge. Finally, we will be imposing tough, new criminal penalties on anyone who defrauds the Medicare system. Health care providers will also make a contribution. Our plan requires doctors and hospitals, as well as older people, to help us save and preserve Medicare. Doctors and hospitals will be asked to accept smaller increases in reimbursement for the services they provide to Medicare patients. Opponents of our plan contend that reducing reimbursement rates for health care providers will lead to less quality care and hospital closings. They are not telling the truth. We're not giving doctors or hospitals less money. Over the next 7 years, Medicare will be paying out $1.6 trillion to health care provides for the treatment of Medicare patients--a substantial increase. But we are putting the brakes on uncontrollable double-digit annual increases in health care costs under Medicare that are driving the program toward bankruptcy. Doctors and hospitals are already being forced to control costs for their patients covered by private health insurance, how they will have to do the same for their Medicare patients. Finally, we are asking our wealthiest seniors--individuals with annual incomes over $60,000 and couples with yearly incomes of more than $90,000--to make a special contribution. Our plan calls for phasing out the government subsidy for Medicare part B that our most affluent seniors currently receive. But the share of premium costs stay the same. Our critics have charged that there will be exorbitant increases in premiums, as much as $3,000 per year. Once again, they are not telling the truth. Right now, premiums paid by seniors cover 31 percent of Medicare part B costs, while general tax revenues pay the remaining 69 percent. Our plan preserves the 31 percent commitment from seniors and the 69 percent commitment from the Federal Government. Under the Medicare plan proposed by President Clinton, in 7 years seniors will be paying monthly premiums of $83. Under the House plan monthly premiums will be only $4 higher in seven years than under the President's proposal. And while the President's plan will keep Medicare part A financially secure for only an additional 3 years, our plan will save both Medicare part A and part B for the next 19 years. Our plan to preserve, protect and strengthen Medicare is the result of months of study and hearings and listening to our constituents in town meetings in each of our districts. It is the only long-term plan that will guarantee that Medicare is preserved for current beneficiaries and those approaching retirement age, our children.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and to his historical struggle for peace; a struggle which ultimately cost him his life. Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate and honored to have met Prime Minister Rabin just this summer during my first visit to the State of Israel. Prime Minister Rabin impressed me as an extremely determined man who was at once genuine, engaging, and impressive in his diplomacy. In the short time we met, I caught a glimpse of those exceptional personal and political traits that were responsible for the monumental change he brought to the peace table. As was said at the funeral on Monday, Rabin was a ``martyr'' for peace. In fact, the primary reason we visited Israel was to better understand both the desire for peace and the formidable obstacles which stood in its way. Once in Israel, it did not take long to realize the enormity of the task that Rabin committed every day of his life to achieving. Indeed, Rabin was a warrior for peace, which is why the peace process will go on--others will follow his unparalleled leadership. The significance of his legacy was perhaps best exemplified by the world leaders who mourned his death. The attendance of 40 world leaders, including Jordan's King Hussein and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, demonstrates the respect he earned from so many people of so many faiths from so many corners of the world. This respect was earned by his leadership and commitment to peace. Mr. Speaker, on this 57th anniversary of Kristallnacht--the Night of Broken Glass that marked the true beginning of the Holocaust--let us remember and salute all that Yitzhak Rabin stood for, fought for, and died for. We must remember so we never forget. We must further be united to his life's goal--a true and lasting peace for the State of Israel.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1366, legislation I introduced earlier this year to extend the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] license for the Mount Hope hydroelectric project by a period of 3 years. I would like to thank Chairman Dan Schaefer and ranking Member Frank Pallone of the Energy and Power Subcommittee for moving this bill expeditiously through their committee. Mount Hope received its original FERC license in August 1992. The license has since been extended by 2 years and is due to expire in August 1996. H.R. 1366 would simply ensure that there is sufficient time for Mount Hope to secure the energy supply contracts needed to begin construction of the proposed facility. The Mount Hope project is a proposed advanced pumped-storage hydroelectric plant located in Morris County, NJ. Far from a conventional hydro plant, the Mount Hope facility will be a closed- cycle system in which water will continuously circulate between two man-made reservoirs: an upper reservoir on the surface and a lower reservoir to be constructed entirely underground. During periods of peak electrical demand or when needed by the regional power pool to enhance system operations, water will be released from the upper reservoir into a vertical shaft which will direct it to the powerhouse 2800 feet underground. There it will pass through a new generation of fast-response turbines which will be capable of reaching the full generating [[Page H 12150]] capacity of 2000 megawatts in as little as 15 seconds--a capability unmatched by any other method of power generation currently available. The water will then be stored in the underground lower reservoir. The project has the strong support of local government officials and organizations, including the mayor of Rockaway Township, NJ, where the project will be built, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association and the Sierra Club of New Jersey. The $1.8 billion project will be financed entirely by the private sector with no taxpayer dollars used for its construction or operation. It is estimated that the project will bring 1300 jobs to New Jersey and boost our Nation's economy by adding approximately $6 billion to the gross national product during construction. It will also inject an estimated $254.4 million directly into the Morris County economy in the form of wages and salaries and contractor spending. In a nutshell, the project can serve as our region's long-term energy insurance policy by enhancing the security of the regional electrical supply system, thus allowing optimized use of existing generating and transmission facilities. Its rapid-response capability and its purchase of pump-up power during off-peak periods would allow existing thermal plants to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively by enabling them to run for longer periods of time at constant output levels. This, along with increased transmission capacity, would facilitate compliance with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. A recent analysis by Tech Environmental Inc. estimated that typical operating profile of Mount Hope would result in a reduction of 13.4 tons of NOx per day. Assuming advanced operation of Mount Hope, it is estimated that NOx emissions could be reduced by 50 tons per day. Mr. Speaker, as you can see the Mount Hope project has many environmental, energy and economic benefits for the State of New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic region. The project has the strong support of local and State officials and organizations and will help us meet goals of the Clean Air Act. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1366 so that we can realize the benefits this exciting project promises.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to our Nation's attention and to my congressional colleagues, the life of Sister Mary Urban Harrer. For more than a quarter of a century, she has been so closely connected with the St. Clares Riverside Medical Center that her name is synonymous with its special mission and reputation. Sister Mary Urban fills many roles at the hospital. She is chairman of the board of the medical center, a founder and mover of the annual Harvest Festival, a relentless fundraiser and organizer, an astute businesswoman, and a health care professional with years of hands-on experience in nursing and hospital administration. Her love of God and her service to mankind knows few equals. But there is a role that transcends even these. First and foremost, she is a religious member of the Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother. This month that role is highlighted as she celebrates her 60 years in the convent. Her long road began in Bavaria where she was born, one of 12 children of Louis and Wally Harrer. Sister Mary Urban entered the convent at Abenburg. But within a short time she was transferred to Rome and the congregation's motherhouse. In 1935, she came to the United States--a journey she had long wished for and a dream come true. In America, she entered the novitiate in Milwaukee, WI, and completed her formation for the religious life, taking her first vows in 1936 and her final vows in 1941. Transferred to St. Francis Regional Medical Center in 1939, she entered the 3-year diploma nursing program and graduated as a registered nurse in 1942. Ten years later, she earned a bachelor's degree in nursing education from Marquette University. For 28 years, she served at St. Francis as staff nurse, head nurse, nursing supervisor, and administrator. She was known not only as a dedicated nurse but one who fought valiantly for her patients. The story is told of the time in Wichita, KS, when she was assisting in a Caesarean delivery. An infant was declared dead by the doctor, but she thought it was too soon to give up. She worked until he was breathing on his own. For the next 18 years, Sister Mary Urban received a bouquet of roses on the baby's birthday. In 1967, she was transferred to Denville, leaving an 800-bed regional medical center for St. Clare's Hospital, then a 180-bed community hospital. As the hospital's administrator, she soon became known for her indomitable spirit, her courage, her gift for fundraising, her deep sense of caring, and her strong faith in God. Daily, she made rounds of patients, moving quietly from room to room to ask how they were doing and promising to speak to the Lord on their behalf. She had so much energy that her feet seemed hardly to hit the ground as she hurried up and down stairs and hallways. To some she was known as the ``flying nun.'' All of her work paid off. In the years of her tenure, St. Clare's grew in size and in the scope of its services. In 1972, a building program almost doubled the hospital's size. In 1984, when a four-story tower was constructed, it was named appropriately, Urban Tower. It was not only the hospital which profited from her presence. So did the larger community. In 1983, the Denville Rotary Club was setting up its first Citizen of the Year Award. Members said they were looking for a person whose actions had contributed most to the residents of Denville area. The unanimous vote was Sister Mary Urban. Today, as Chairman of the Board, she continues to be involved in the day-to-day life of the medical center where she brings determination to her work as she does for the Harvest Festival, the successful 1-day country fair which she inspired. She has the ability to inspire others to the same kind of Herculean efforts. And they [[Page E 2130]] come back year after year to do the same incredible job again. Their efforts--and hers--have paid substantial dividends. In the first 19 years, the Festival has raised $2.6 million to support hospital services and programs and to fund construction and equipment purchases. This October was the 20th Harvest Festival. Her wonderful combination of perseverance, determination, and caring has made her a major asset to the medical center. Many believe that Sister Mary Urban is largely responsible for building the public support which has in turn fostered the growth of the medical center and made it what it is today: A 417-bed regional health care center. The young farm girl who entered a Bavarian convent 60 years ago has made a difference to a town she did not then know existed. God has blessed St. Clares Riverside, Sister Mary Urban has said, by building it into a fine hospital. Those who know her believe that she helped make that happen. Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we recognize and salute Sister Mary Urban Harrer's life and service.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to a fellow Vietnam War veteran and a dedicated member of the U.S. Army upon his retirement after more than 27 years of dedicated service to his country. Colonel Napoliello is most deserving of our tribute. His career accomplishments reflect the type of military leader this Nation has depended upon for over 20 years in both war and peace. I would like to take a few minutes to highlight Dave's career milestones. [[Page E 2121]] After graduating as a distinguished military graduate from the University of Nebraska with a bachelor of science degree in business administration and the field artillery officer basic course in 1968, Colonel Napoliello served with a 175/8'' battery in Vietnam. Upon completion of his tour of duty in Vietnam, he was assigned to Germany where he commanded a sergeant missile battery. Upon his return to the United States, he was assigned as an assistant professor of military science at Creighton University and then served with the U.N. Truce Commission on the Golan Heights and in the Sinai. In 1979, he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington and served as operations officer and executive officer for a 155/8'' artillery battalion and subsequently as division artillery executive officer. After a tour at the Pentagon with the Department of the Army, he commanded a 155/8'' artillery battalion at Fort Ord, CA. In recent years he has served as director of resource management at the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, special assistant to the commanding general, Training and Doctrine Command, and as the first project manager for the Army's Advanced Field Artillery System at Picatinny Arsenal, which resides in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District. For the past 20 months he has served as the senior military assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Colonel Napoliello holds a masters of business degree from the University of Utah and a master of arts in international relations. Additionally, he is a graduate of the Army Command and Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College, the Army War College, and the Naval War College. He has received, the Defense Superior Service Medal, two awards of the Legion of Merit, five Meritorious Service Medals, five awards of the Air Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the U.N. Observer Medal, the Army and Department of Defense Staff Identification Badges, and the Air Crewman's Badge. Colonel Napoliello is married to the former Sharon Holmquist and they have two children. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to present the distinguished personal and professional credentials of Col. David A. Napoliello before the Congress today. It is clear, through his stated accomplishments for his country, that he has been a man who daily dedicates himself to the peace and freedom we enjoy as a Nation. All his actions reflect a true leader with a clear sense of purpose, conviction, and conscience of service to his country. We wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his kind remarks about New Jersey. I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1905, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1996. I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for their leadership and guidance. As Chairman Myers said, this conference agreement is $1,23 billion below the President's budget request and is $707 million less than fiscal year 1995. This report moves the country one step closer towards a goal of balancing the Federal budget. It provides for essential national and regional priorities in programs at the Department of Energy and within the Army Corps of Engineers. Overall, the agreement reflects the changing priorities of the new Congress by reducing spending. We had to make the tough choices about where to cut spending, while supporting programs that are in the best interest of our country. As House conferees, we were successful in keeping the bill closer to spending in the original House bill than the bill which passed the Senate, which is $1.5 billion over the House- passed bill. I am pleased that the conference agreement flatly rejected the President's new policy changes which would have ended the Federal role in flood control and coastal protection. By rejecting the President's policy, which was ill-conceived, New Jersey and other shore States and flood-prone areas will be protected again. Even though this agreement does not go as far as I would have liked in reforming some of our spending programs, it does represent real progress towards a smaller, smarter Government. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to a good friend and former colleague, Assemblyman Arthur Albohn of Hanover Township who is retiring from the New Jersey General Assembly after 16 years of dedicated service. Having served with Art in the Assembly for 11 of those years as the junior member of the 25th Legislative District, I must say that it was difficult referring to oneself as a fiscal conservative while sitting next to him in the Assembly Chamber. Art has voted ``no'' on so many spending bills during his career that he makes the 104th Congress look like the previous forty. In the process, he earned the respect of his colleagues, the appreciation of his constituents and the admiration of all New Jerseyans. He was elected to the General Assembly in 1979 after serving on the Hanover Township Committee for 27 years, including 5 terms as Mayor, 18 years as the Director of Finance and 12 on the Sewerage Authority. However, Art's forte was developed earlier in life during his education in New York. Born in Queens, Art graduated from Columbia University and earned an additional degree in Chemical Engineering. Since that time, Art had worked in chemical engineering and management consulting for Goodyear, Rayonier, Celanese and more recently retired from the Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation of Peapack- Gladstone. Art has utilized his proficiency in this field while serving as Chairman of the Assembly Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee and as a member of the Assembly Local Government Committee and New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology. As former colleagues in the Assembly, Representatives Jim Saxton, Dick Zimmer, Bob Franks, Frank LoBiondo and Bob Menendez can each attest to Art's commitment to legislation based on common sense and sound science. Anyone who knows Art Albohn knows that he could not have been so successful without the love and support of his wife of 51 years, Regina, who has been at his side and often out in front during his political career. As far as we know, Regina is the only person to whom Art has never said ``no''! Although they will want to spend time with their three children and two grandchildren, I have no doubt that Art and Regina will remain active in public life and still have much to contribute to the quality of life in Morris County, NJ. I, for one, will still count on his friendship and good counsel. I will miss him as a fellow elected official, his strong, independent views, his dry humor and unfailing dedication to the Jeffersonian proposition ``that government which governs least, governs best.''

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people elect politicians to help fix problems with Government. Pretty simple stuff, one would imagine. But, unfortunately, some politicians do [[Page H 9509]] not see things quite so clearly. They see no wrong with Government. Government could never do anything inefficiently or ill-advised. Take, for example, on this side of the aisle, there are politicians who want to strengthen Medicare, make it a better program, and allow seniors more choices in making their own health care decisions. On the other side of the aisle we have some politicians who passionately defense the status quo, even though the status quo is 30 years old without revisions. They would rather deny Medicare to those in need down the road than do anything to fix it now. Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this irresponsibility. Medicare is in serious need of reform. Republicans want to fix Medicare and make sure it exists for many years to come.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Medicare crisis to share with my colleagues the suggestions I have received from my constituents about how best to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. In April, when the Medicare trustees issued their annual report which stated quite clearly that the Medicare Trust Fund would be bankrupt in 7 years, I felt it was my duty to inform the people of the 11th Congressional District of the problem. I mailed the facts of the trustees report to over 22,000 people in my district. I met with the presidents of nearly every senior citizens club in the area. I listened to thousands of Medicare beneficiaries at Morristown Memorial Hospital, the Morris Plains VFW, and at St. Clare's Riverside Medical Center in Denville. In addition to discussing the Medicare crisis, I also asked people for suggestions on how we could save and improve the program, while holding down costs. Mr. Speaker, the response has been overwhelming. Who better to suggest ways to improve Medicare than the very people who have to deal with the system every day? As you might imagine, the meetings yielded a litany of suggestions. A man from Sparta suggested that Medicare should have a better verification system to weed out overcharges and duplication of services rendered. A couple from Livingston strongly suggested that millions of dollars could be saved by reducing the mountains of paperwork involved in the Medicare bureaucracy. The responses touched on other subjects as well. At the Morris Plains VFW, several people indicated that more preventive care was needed such as mammograms, prostate screenings, and diabetes screening. I agree. This would not only help reduce costs but greatly improve people's health and I was surprised that the current Medicare program was weak in this area. If we can keep people healthier and provide routine health care and appropriate checkups, we can avoid using the most costly method of health care which is the emergency room. I have listened to all of these concerns and brought them back to Washington. In fact, I applaud the leadership for giving Members an opportunity to testify on behalf of our constituents. I was pleased to have that opportunity, and testified on September 7, on what I have learned from the people of the 11th Congressional District. One constant theme was that the people know there is a problem, and they want to be part of the solution. If we do not give them that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, then we have really solved nothing at all. To be sure, I will continue this thoughtful and important discussion and listen to these very knowledgeable people. Last week, when the preliminary Medicare preservation options were presented to us, I called for a series of town meetings so that my constituents could share the exact information given to me on possible solutions and plans to strengthen Medicare. I am sure they will take a hard look at these options, and will continue to provide guidance for me and this Congress as we fulfill our responsibility to preserve Medicare for all Americans--present beneficiaries as well as the next generation. The Medicare Preservation Act is just that, a comprehensive plan to ensure a better Medicare. On September 16, hundreds of older Americans attended two town meetings in Fairfield and Parsippany, and listened to the broad outline of the proposed Medicare Preservation Act. I expect that the turnout will be even heavier this weekend, September 23, when we continue the Medicare discussions at town meetings in Roxbury and Madison. I welcome this open exchange of ideas and encourage my colleagues to continue the dialogue with the American people on how to save this important program. While it is very easy to be sidetracked in Washington by special interest groups, media hype, and partisan politics, listening to people on a face-to-face level permits a much clearer message to emerge. Mr. Speaker, the message that I hear more and more is that we know there is a problem and we are willing to fix it. They have said that Medicare is indeed important for us but is also important for our children and grandchildren. And finally, they tell me that if Medicare is really going bankrupt, then we as Members of Congress have a responsibility to save it. I have confidence that we are moving toward fulfilling that responsibility, and I thank the thousands of people in the 11th Congressional District for their guidance on these very complex issues. Their willingness, contributions, and suggestions will assure successful reforms of the Medicare program and its preservation. I am fortunate to be their Representative, and am also fortunate to help deliver a comprehensive plan which will ensure a better Medicare system for years to come.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, we all favor increased competition in all markets. And that is what I thought this bill stood for. But the fact is that local carriers are in a unique position because all long-distance calls must pass through their facilities. This control lets the local carriers discriminate against their competitors in the delivery of long-distance service. If not a single other entity can offer this service with their own equipment, the locals will continue to stifle competition. That is precisely why we need the facilities based competition provided in the original bill. The 66 page manager's amendment--takes this entry test out of the bill, and that is simply unfair. Mr. Chairman, if there is only one drawbridge over a river, the person who lifts that bridge is a monopoly. Likewise, if all long- distance calls have to go through one company's switches, we still have a monopoly. Oppose this amendment and support the original bill.