Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the continuing resolution before us enacts historic spending reductions but it does so by striking a careful balance between deficit reduction and other important goals. I regret the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the point of balance, and thus, I must oppose it. Mr. Chairman, deficit reduction is the bill's top priority, and our bill already significantly reduces the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account. As written, our bill cuts that account to 35 percent below current levels and 38 percent, or nearly $900 million, below the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Our bill cuts the excess and provides only enough funding to continue past commitments, leaving little room left to cut. While I support the intent of the gentleman's amendment, as it aims to reduce further spending, we must do so responsibly and with a careful balance among deficit reduction, jobs, and our Nation's energy security. The gentleman's amendment fails to maintain this balance and would, to my mind, create undue job losses which would be considerable and irreversibly damage this particular program. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program supports technology, research, and development to keep America competitive and ensure our access to domestic energy sources. While these are critically important goals, so too is meeting our pledge to substantially reduce the Nation's deficit beginning this year. Our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy 35 percent below the current level and 38 percent, or $888 million, below the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. The bill limits funding for programs that are still supported by unspent Recovery Act dollars. It also eliminates earmarks and slims down research programs by more than $500 million while preserving core activities supporting American competitiveness in emerging energy industries. After these cuts, there is simply no more fat to trim. Cutting the program would cost excessive job losses and defaults on past commitments. While I support the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending, this amendment would go too far beyond the careful balance that we have crafted in this bill. I and the committee fully intend to exert unprecedented oversight of this program. So as we move forward, I would be happy to work with the gentleman as we do; however, I must regret that I oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman from California's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The record is corrected, and you are absolutely right.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, while the energy efficiency and renewable energy program supports research and development important to American competitiveness, the program has seen a 30 percent increase since the fiscal year 2008 and received $16.8 billion in stimulus funding in the Recovery Act. Now is therefore the right time to cut the fat and replace indiscriminate spending increases with smart prioritization and oversight. Two programs within this account, Weatherization Assistance and the State Energy Program, do not focus on competitiveness and instead pass funding on to state and local governments. These two programs together have $4.7 billion in unspent Recovery Act funding and have encountered substantial management challenges in the last 2 years. And I may say, substantial. The bill eliminates funding in fiscal year 2011 for weatherization and state energy programs whose unspent Recovery Act funding should sustain it through fiscal year 2011. In fact, at current implementation rates, which have been incredibly slow, unspent funding would last through 2012. The amendment ignores these commonsense facts and the imperative to reduce spending by moving unneeded funding back into an already bloated program. I therefore, oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment adds, as we know, $50 million for ARPA-E while cutting funding for the fossil energy program. The Energy and Water portion of this bill strikes a careful balance between national security, American competitiveness, and the grave responsibility of deficit reduction. As written, this bill provides sufficient funding to keep ARPA-E operational and active in fiscal year 2011 while we thoroughly evaluate the program and its future in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. ARPA-E has shown some promise in advancing our competitiveness; but in the light of the tough tradeoffs we've had to make in this bill--and indeed, they've been tough--I can't support further increased funding for ARPA-E before we've had a broader discussion of the new program. Further, to achieve this bill's historic levels of spending reduction, the bill has struck a finely tuned balance of support across programs within the Department of Energy. The amendment would reduce funding for fossil energy research and development. The program cut by the amendment ensures not only that fossil energy which generates nearly 70 percent of the Nation's electricity is clean and efficient but that it uses technologies invented in America and creates jobs here at home. Yet, because reducing spending is our top priority, all programs must sacrifice, and the bill cuts fossil energy, research and development well below the 2010 mark and 21 percent below fiscal year 2008. Further reductions to fossil energy can be damaging to the program's important goals and may lead to excessive job losses. For this reason and because further increases to ARPA-E are currently unwarranted, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Iraqi Security Forces Fund is required to enable the Iraqi Security Forces to reach minimum essential capabilities. These capabilities will allow those forces to maintain internal security with police forces in the lead and defense forces in support while building foundational capabilities for the Iraqi military forces to provide external defense prior to U.S. forces' departure on 31 December 2011. This is our Nation's commitment, our President's commitment, our Commander-in-Chief's commitment. It is a bipartisan commitment. It is more than just this majority's commitment to see the departure of our U.S. forces in that time frame. This Iraqi Security Forces Fund funds the following five categories: Equipment purchases and transportation of equipment, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, communications gear and spare parts; Infrastructure projects such as construction and improvements of police stations, military bases, training centers, maintenance facilities, and border enforcement facilities, among other infrastructure; Training and operations projects and programs such as training school and maintenance facilities, vehicles for training centers, and training of security forces; Sustainment of security forces through maintenance programs, human resources, information management systems, support service, and medical services; Other activities such as detainee operations, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. These are essential to speed our departure from Afghanistan. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. Holt's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my colleague from New Jersey's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the rule and the continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, we would not be in this position this afternoon if the leadership of the last Congress let the Appropriations Committee do its work last year, to act on the President's budget proposal when it came out, to debate our bills in full committee, to debate our bills on the floor. So that is why we are here today. It would have been great if last year's House leadership had actually listened to the American people. We would not be in this situation if the President and the congressional leadership hadn't borrowed billions of dollars, mortgaging our future, to spend on multiple stimulus bills and bailouts that did little to create private-sector jobs and restore consumer confidence. The Department of Energy alone had $39 billion in stimulus money, all, I might say, borrowed--$9 billion more than its entire budget. It was a recipe for waste, a scatter gun approach that raised many public expectations but in the end provided few achievements and fewer yet jobs. In many cases it created businesses in the energy sector that could not survive without more government funding. To me, it created false markets. As some described it, it was more money than some knew how to deal with. For months, those dollars were not obligated, much less spent, hiring up people in the public and private sector that the White House and the House and Senate leadership knew would eventually be laid off. Some might call it a job Ponzi scheme, a blank check owed to our children. So here we are this week to pick up the pieces, right-size the ship of state, stop spending money we don't have, and restore trust for the American people that has been badly broken.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Defense Subcommittee has spent much time over the past 2 years looking into the effects of the services--all the services--to reduce their dependence on fossil fuel. The Department of Defense, which consumes 93 percent of all the fuel consumed by the U.S. Government, has made significant strides in reducing its consumption, but the associated logistics of moving fuel for vehicles, aircraft, forward operating bases remain massive and costly. It has also been shown that for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan, an American soldier is wounded or killed. The Defense Subcommittee has made a conscious and dedicated effort to advance the Department's efforts, searching for better ways to reduce consumption and alleviate the costly and complicated logistics. This amendment, however, would unnecessarily erase that progress and further the Department's dependence on fossil fuels. For this, and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, some suggested some time ago that we have to wait until 2012 or 2013 to make these decisions. We need to make these tough decisions now, to cut spending and to create a climate where the private sector can go hire workers. The Energy and Water Development section of this bill totals $29.9 billion, an 11 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010. That's a tough decision. This level more truly represents what should be the top priorities of the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the other accounts funded under our subcommittee's purview. Far from the ``meat axe'' approach that some have suggested we're taking in H.R. 1, our product is one of careful, thoughtful, line-by- line analysis. We have looked at which programs are must-haves, which have significant unobligated balances, and which are redundant. Above all, we've ensured that the core national security mandate of the Department is adequately funded. Frankly, other countries' nuclear stockpile programs aren't taking a time-out while we wrestle with our budget challenges. The stewardship of the nuclear stockpile is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Energy. In fact, weapons activities and naval reactors receive the only increases in our bill. We do, however, make major reductions in the Department of Energy; major cuts. We eliminate all earmarks. That's close to $500 million, just in the Department of Energy. And we cut out programs like weatherization, with billions and billions of unspent stimulus money. In fact, the Department of Energy received close to $39 billion in stimulus money. Finally, we've cut back on programs like biological and environmental research that are not core to the Department's historical responsibilities and focus. We do all of this so the Department of Energy can focus on what we need to do--to support the private sector in developing the next round of energy-related intellectual property and the jobs associated with it. We need to do it. I support the CR. I think we ought to move on with it.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, every year, more high school seniors from the 11th Congressional District trade in varsity jackets for Navy pea coats, Air Force flight suits, and Army brass buckles than most other districts in the country. But this is nothing new--our area has repeatedly sent an above average portion of its sons and daughters to our nation's military academies for decades. This fact should not come as a surprise. The educational excellence of area schools is well known and has long been a magnet for families looking for the best environment in which to raise their children. Our graduates are skilled not only in mathematics, science, and social studies, but also have solid backgrounds in sports, debate teams, and other extracurricular activities. This diverse upbringing makes military academy recruiters sit up and take note--indeed, many recruiters know our towns and schools by name. Since the 1830's, Members of Congress have enjoyed meeting, talking with, and nominating these superb young people to our military academies. But how did this process evolve? In 1843, when West Point was the sole academy, Congress ratified the nominating process and became directly involved in the makeup of our military's leadership. This was not an act of an imperial Congress bent on controlling every aspect of Government. Rather, the procedure still used today was, and is, a further check and balance in our democracy. It was originally designed to weaken and divide political coloration in the officer corps, provide geographical balance to our armed services, and to make the officer corps more resilient to unfettered nepotism and handicapped European armies. In 1854, Representative Gerritt Smith of New York added a new component to the academy nomination process--the academy review board. This was the first time a Member of Congress appointed prominent citizens from his district to screen applicants and assist with the serious duty of nominating candidates for academy admission. Today, I am honored to continue this wise tradition in my service to the 11th Congressional District. My Academy Review Board is composed of six local citizens who have shown exemplary service to New Jersey, to their communities, and to the continued excellence of education in our area-many are veterans. Though from diverse backgrounds and professions, they all share a common dedication that the best qualified and motivated graduates attend our academies. And, as true for most volunteer panels, their service goes largely unnoticed. I would like to take a moment to recognize these men and women and thank them publicly for participating in this important panel. Being on the board requires hard work and an objective mind. Members have the responsibility of interviewing upwards of 50 outstanding high school seniors every year in the academy review process. The nomination process follows a general timetable. High school seniors mail personal information directly to the Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the Merchant Marine Academy once they become interested in attending. Information includes academic achievement, college entry test scores, and other activities. At this time, they also inform my office of their desire to be nominated. The academies then assess the applicants, rank them based on the data supplied, and return the files to my office with their notations. In late November, our Academy Review Board interviews all of the applicants over the course of 2 days. They assess a student's qualifications and analyze character, desire to serve, and other talents that may be hidden on paper. As these highly motivated and talented young men and women go through the academy nominating process, never let us forget the sacrifice they are preparing to make: to defend our country and protect our citizens. This holds especially true at a time when our nation is fighting the war against terrorism. Whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other hot spots around the world, no doubt we are constantly reminded that wars are fought by the young. And, while our military missions are both important and dangerous, it is reassuring to know that we continue to put America's best and brightest in command. Academy Nominees for 2011 12th Congressional District New Jersey Air Force Academy Erin Crow, Livingston, Tabb H.S., Yorktown, VA Beau Langdon, Livingston, Livingston H.S. Brian Moscioni, Mendham, Gill St. Bernard's School Alexander Gilbert, Long Valley, West Morris Central H.S. Menachem Felzenberg, Morristown, Homeschooled, West Point,

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2--legislation to repeal the so-called Affordable Care Act--a new effort to strengthen our health care system. This will be the first step in ensuring that the American people will remain in control of their own health care through a system that is patient-centered and provides health care choices, not government- imposed mandates. Many people question why we are doing this. They ask, Why repeal the new health care law if there are good provisions in it? Well, there may be some aspects of the 3,000-page bill, which is now law, that were commendable 10 months ago. However, those few positive provisions do not outweigh the fact that the new law's most damaging aspect is that it turns over to the Federal Government individuals' rights to make their own health care choices for themselves and for their families. The new law has given Washington bureaucrats extraordinary power to control the health care decisions of all Americans: Forcing us to buy health insurance that Washington deems to be acceptable; potentially fining us for refusing to do so, which I believe would be unconstitutional; determining our choices of doctors, hospitals and home care; deciding which medicines we can take and which medical procedures will be available to our families; putting one-sixth of our economy under government control. Let me be clear. I support health care reform. However, I do not support this new health care law, which represents, to a very great extent, a Washington takeover of our health care system. This law is creating over 150 new boards, bureaus, committees, commissions, offices, pilot programs, working groups, and agencies which will issue onerous regulations that will change our health care system forever-- and not for the better. Remember, over 90 percent of Americans have health coverage for themselves and for their families. Why did the last Congress insist on a virtual takeover of the other 10 percent? That is why I support the repeal, coupled with major changes to assist those who do not have coverage, without harming the plans of hundreds of millions of Americans who do. My colleagues, why is this repeal necessary today? Because the negative effects of this new law are already being felt and are threatening the practice of medicine as we know it. This new law has eroded your right to choose your health care and your doctors, and it is putting bureaucrats and politicians in charge. Despite predictions from the White House, insurance premiums are not going down. To the contrary, premiums are rising across the Nation for people who have insurance as insurance companies struggle to pay for the costs of a raft of new mandates imposed by Washington. Even as we speak, doctors are changing their practices because this new law discourages their ability to work as single practitioners or in group practice. In addition, doctors face more paperwork, more red tape, and more risk to their licenses to practice. Furthermore, the new law does nothing to solve or diminish the wave of junk medical lawsuits that force doctors, medical professions, and hospitals to practice expensive defensive medicine. Also missing from the law is any program to promote and support medical education in America, the next generation of young people who we will count on for care. At the same time, doctors and hospitals will face reduced Medicare reimbursements and even more onerous Medicare rules and regulations, causing even more physicians to refuse to treat senior citizens. And what about the promises we heard about the benefits of the new law? To protect Americans from being denied coverage due to preexisting or other conditions, 27 States have created their own high-risk insurance pools. Others have used an option in the law to let their residents buy coverage through a new Federal health plan. Last spring, Medicare's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up for one of these special plans by the end of 2010. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services reported last month that just over 8,000 people had enrolled. This difference of 367,000 enrollees raises real questions about the then-majority's demand for this provision. And with claims to provide coverage for another 34 million Americans, we need to be reminded that 18 million of these newly insured people will gain coverage through the financially stressed Medicaid program, which is almost broke. My colleagues, current Medicaid enrollees are already having trouble finding doctors who will see them because of low reimbursement rates. This law proposes to add another 18 million patients to a struggling and absolutely necessary program. In addition, our hospitals are already reeling. Passage of the new health care law has accelerated the layoff of hundreds of employees in hospitals in my congressional district. When further Medicare cuts take hold, how are these institutions going to maintain their quality of care? They aren't. And what of the advertised benefits of the new health care law? Backers actually claimed the new law would reduce the Federal deficit. This claim is based on dubious economic assumptions, double counting, and other budget gimmickry. And it is astounding that this law counts 10 years of anticipated revenues to offset 6 years of new spending. Here's a simple fact: If ObamaCare is fully implemented, it will not cut the deficit. The law will actually add more than $700 billion to the deficit in its first 10 years. And what about jobs? Our first priority should be creating private sector employment opportunities, especially in America's small businesses. However, the evidence is clear: by raising taxes, imposing new health mandates and regulations, and increasing uncertainty for small business employers, investors and entrepreneurs, ObamaCare is already destroying jobs in our country. With nearly 10 percent unemployment and massive public debt, the American people want us to focus on cutting spending and expanding our economy. That's why I will urge my Colleagues to support this important repeal legislation and take the first steps towards replacing it with reforms that will bring down costs, expand health care accessibility and protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, this week we have the opportunity to ensure that our constituents remain in control of their own health care through a system that is patient-centered and provides health care choices, not Washington-imposed mandates. I urge support of H.R. 2--the repeal of Obamacare.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, Saturday was indeed a grim day for our Nation. It was the day our beloved colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, was attacked while doing her job listening to her constituents. It was Gabby herself who aptly said just last year that the term ``representative'' is more of a job ``description'' than a job ``title.'' As we all work to represent our constituents and our States and Nation, the Speaker is correct when he said that ``an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.'' Last weekend, Gabby's efforts to serve her constituents brought her staff, herself and her constituents into a line of fire from a deranged man who shot 21 defenseless, innocent citizens. Six people died and many were wounded. Phyllis Schneck was a 79-year- old native of New Jersey who lived during the summer on Old Lake End Road in the Green Pond section of Rockaway Township in my congressional district. She was one of those. Mrs. Schneck and her late husband, Ernie, lived for years in Towaco, and they were active members of the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church. She was a member of the Montville Women's Club. She was a mother, grandmother and great grandmother. Hers, as were the others, were lives well lived. Madam Speaker, our minds reel from Saturday's violence. Our hearts ache for those slain and injured and their families and friends. However, as is so often the case when an act of random cruelty bewilders and depresses us, exceptional displays of generosity, courage and heroism can serve as a potent counterweight. These acts are a reminder of the extraordinary selflessness that people are capable of. Let's remember and salute those acts today. Mark and Gabby, we are thinking of you. We are behind you all the time. We love you.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Tax Relief Act of 2010 and urge its passage. My Colleagues, the goal of this legislation is to prevent the imposition of the largest tax increase in the history of the world and to continue many valuable tax provisions that promote economic growth. These goals are my goals. There Is never a good time to raise taxes, but I cannot think of a worse time to increase the tax burden on America's hard-working families and job-creating small businesses than in the middle of a weak recovery. Like all Members, I have strongly supported extending the Bush tax rates, enacted in 2001 and 2003. Like some of my Colleagues, I have supported extending these lower tax rates for everyone and making that extension permanent. That's why I introduced H.R. 4270 which would lock in these lower tax rates indefinitely. The important legislation before us today includes many beneficial provisions. For example, the agreement: Prevents tax increases on every American who pays income taxes. Eliminates job-killing tax increases on small businesses. Provides relief from the estate tax for family owned businesses. Preserves the $1,000 per child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. Blocks higher taxes on capital gains and dividends. Protects at least 21 million households, including 1.6 million in New Jersey, from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in 2010. Provides a one-year payroll tax cut that is worth $1,400 for the average New Jersey household. I must acknowledge that I am not pleased that this bill prevents a tax hike on higher income Americans and small businessmen and women, which would have taken effect on New Year's Day 2011, for only two years. Our economy does not run on temporary, stop-gap half-measures. In order to invest and grow their companies for the future--creating private sector jobs and opportunities in the process--businesses of all sizes need predictability in the tax code. They need certainty in order to plan their operations and workforce expansion. In order to spur job creation, all the tax rates should be extended as far as the eye can see! The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million private sector jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012. In addition, lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends will boost capital investment and spur economic growth. I also have strong reservations about some of the spending included in this bill and some of the so-called tax extensions. For example, the package extends the federal Unemployment insurance (UI) Program for another 13 months and maintains the current cap of 99 weeks of total benefits. I understand that people need a helping hand and strongly support aiding unemployed Americans. However, the President has insisted that the cost of extending benefits be added to the country's $14 trillion debt. We can do better than this. The fact is that we CAN help the long-term unemployed AND pay for it. Likewise, we should object to certain so-called ``tax extenders'' such as the renewed subsidies for the production and use of corn ethanol. For yet another year, $6 billion will be extracted from U.S. taxpayers to prop up the struggling ethanol industry while diverting valuable corn supplies from other worthwhile uses. Despite these and other reasons, I will support this bipartisan agreement. I recognize that a ``no'' vote on this bill represents a ``no'' vote on the U.S. economy. It would be nothing short of a disaster to allow the largest tax increase in U.S. history to crush American families and small business in two short weeks. Mr. Chair, the larger debate surrounding extension of the lower Bush tax rates underscores the need for Congress to act decisively in the New Year to support private sector job creation, reduce government spending, lower our dangerous public debt and enact permanent tax reform.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Liberty Corner Fire Company, located in Bernards Township, Somerset County, New Jersey which is celebrating its 100th Anniversary. The Liberty Corner Fire Company was incorporated on October 17, 1910 and spent the first 4\1/2\ years organizing and growing prior to its activation. On March 4, 1915, during a meeting that officially activated the company, 34 members joined what has become a fire company exuding bravery and rich in generosity. After becoming active, the members needed a firehouse. In June of 1915, a lot was purchased and one month later construction began. At the time of completion, the Liberty Corner Fire Department funds ran low, but through the donation from the Bernardsville Fire Company, the Company acquired its first fire apparatus. Over the years, the Liberty Corner Fire Company joined alongside many other departments as they battled fires. The members worked tirelessly to not only keep their own community safe, but surrounding communities as well. The company often reported to fires in other towns in an effort to provide assistance. In 1954, it was decided that there was a need for a larger firehouse. Realizing the high cost to do so, the members dedicated 7,400 hours of manpower to expand the building. By doing so, they were able to save over half the cost of the expansion. The building was completed with a dedication ceremony on July 14, 1956. On December 10th of that same year, the Liberty Corner Fire Company received the Certificate of Perpetual Existence. The 1980s brought about a boom of residential and commercial building in the department's primary service area. With the completion of an interstate highway and over 2,000 residential homes built, the demands of the Fire Company increased. In response, the Company purchased a command vehicle: 1982 Dodge Diplomat. However, the need also arose for a new firehouse to keep up with the new construction sizes of modern fire apparatuses. After a long process of raising funds for a new firehouse, the groundbreaking was held in August of 1989. Over a year later, in September of 1990, the Liberty Corner Fire Company moved into its new home on a 10-acre lot purchased back in 1925. This house boasts a side bay with offices and rooms to facilitate day-to-day work at the company. On May 4, 1991, a wet down was held to celebrate the new firehouse In an effort to keep up with rising costs, the company began the Santa Fund Drive in 2000. In conjunction with the holidays, the company offers parents the chance to have Santa Claus arrive on a fire truck to present their child with a gift. On March 8, 2007, the members of the Liberty Corner Fire Company were presented with a grant from the Fireman's Fund Heritage Program to help fund safety equipment. In July of the same year, the company was invited to participate in America's Independence Day Parade in our nation's capital, Washington, DC. In September 2009, insurance agency Lake McVicker, along with the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, awarded the Liberty Corner Fire Company a grant for a new thermal imaging camera to replace on its new Pierce pumper. Today, the Liberty Corner Fire Company boasts an impressive fleet of fire trucks and responds to a wide array of emergencies in and around their community. The success of volunteer fire departments such as this one is vital to the security of millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Liberty Corner Fire Company as they celebrate 100 years of exceptional service.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woman's Club of Morristown located in Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 100th Anniversary this year. Since its inception in 1920 as the Woman's Town Improvement Committee, the Woman's Club of Morristown has played a significant role in the community. Part of the New Jersey State Federation of Woman's Clubs and the General Federation of Woman's Clubs, the Woman's Club of Morristown has a long history of helping improve the lives of others. Over the past century, the scope and impact of the efforts made by the members of the Woman's Club of Morristown have been far-reaching; from raising funds to volunteering their time for a variety of causes. They have shown a strong commitment to assisting the needs of cancer patients, newborns, nursing home residents, and residents at Greystone Psychiatric Hospital. In addition, they have shown their support for education by providing assistance to The Lake Drive School for the Hearing Impaired, awarding scholarships to graduates of Morristown High School and donating books to the Morristown Library. The Woman's Club of Morristown has also shown their support for organizations that help battered women and abused children. They are continuously looking to help those less fortunate, exemplified by their donations of clothing to Seaman's Institute and their co-sponsoring of ``Operation Holiday,'' which provides gifts to those who cannot afford them. In addition to assisting organizations in the community, the Woman's Club of Morristown has noted the historical importance of the area by preserving and maintaining the historic house of Dr. Lewis Condict, which serves as their club house. The house was built in 1797 and has been maintained by the organization for over 50 years. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Woman's Club of Morristown as they celebrate 100 incredible years of community service.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Township of Denville's Annual Sri Lanka Day, which celebrated its 35th annual festival this summer. Beginning in 1975 with around 300 families in attendance, Denville's Sri Lanka Day has grown into one of the largest events of its kind, attracting close to 2,000 families. Sri Lankans come from beyond the tri-state area, with some coming from as far away as Canada to attend the event. The Sri Lanka Day festival started as a vision of Jay Liyanage, a Sri Lanka native who resides in Denville, and would not be possible without the outstanding support of the Denville Rotary Club and the Sri Lanka Association of New York. The festival is a beautiful display of Sri Lankan culture. In addition to offerings of cultural foods, music and clothing, the event features many sporting events. The highlights this year were the cricket matches between the Sri Lanka Association of New York and the Sri Lanka Association of Washington, D.C., as well as a match between an all-Sri Lankan team and an all-Denville team. For the second consecutive year the Sri Lanka Medical Association of North America generously ran a free medical clinic. Organizers credit the cricket matches, health clinic and the ending of the long civil war that occurred over the past 25 years in Sri Lanka for the large increase in attendance over the past few years. The festival theme of ``togetherness'' is always exhibited at Sri Lanka Day where people from all walks of life come together to celebrate the Sri Lankan culture. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Township of Denville's annual Sri Lanka Day for hosting their 35th Celebration.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Montville Fire Department located in the Township of Morris, Morris County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary this year. Established in 1910 as the Excelsior Fire Company by Mr. John Capstick, the Montville Fire Department has long been representative of bravery and generosity. In just their first year, the fire department boasted an impressive 29 volunteers. Their first drill was performed on September 24, 1910 with Horace Eagan as their chief. On October 1, 1910, thanks to the efforts of Mr. Capstick, the department was able to purchase their first vehicle: a horse-drawn hook and ladder truck. A few months later, on February 6, 1911, the volunteer firemen constructed their first firehouse with materials donated by Mr. Capstick. On November 6, 1911 the Township Committee took control of the fire department. When John Capstick passed away in 1918, the department went through a period of financial instability. After reorganizing into different zones the fire department elected five fire commissioners on August 27, 1921. The fire department sold bonds in order to raise money to purchase its first motorized vehicle in 1922. The fire department participated in their first parade on June 3, 1931 as a part of the North Jersey Volunteer Firemen's Association Parade. The fire department upgraded in 1932 to the Buffalo fire truck which provided them with state of the art equipment, for that time period. Then, due to a generous donation by the Ladies Auxiliary, the Montville Fire Department was able to construct a new firehouse. The 1950s saw two big expansions for the Montville Fire Department. First, in 1952 came the addition of two International 500 GPM high pressure pump trucks to their fleet. Three years later they established the Excelsior Fire Company No. 2 to better cover the hills of the Taylortown district. The Montville Fire Department eventually sold their famed Buffalo fire truck to a private company; however in 1976, the fire department repurchased and restored the vehicle. The Buffalo fire truck is still owned by the department and since the restoration project has received hundreds of trophies. The Montville Fire Department has always been a leader in innovation. They were the first department in Northern New Jersey to win the National Fire Prevention Award. In 1957 the department was awarded for organizing one of the first Junior Fire Marshal programs in the Nation. They also were the first department to distribute reflectors to invalids and to spray Christmas trees with fire retardant. Today, the Montville Fire Department boasts an impressive five fire trucks and responds to a wide array of emergencies. The success of volunteer fire departments such as this one is vital to the security of millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Montville Fire Department as they celebrate 100 years of committed service.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company, District #3 located in Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 75th Anniversary. In 1935, a group of concerned citizens, recognizing the need for fire protection in the Lake Parsippany area, began taking steps toward the formation of the Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company. The Fire Company was formally organized in early September with incorporation formalities approved on November 2, 1935. Determined to start the company off successfully, members loaned money to purchase some fire equipment and a committee was formed to investigate the possibility of purchasing a used fire truck. By December 1935, just one month after organizing, the company had acquired its first fire truck from the Livingston Fire Company. The Morris Plains Fire Association provided fire rings with which to summon members to a fire. In the early days, meetings were held in the residences of Mr. Peter Yeager and Mr. Edward Flanagan. The Lake Parsippany Property Owners Association Club House eventually became the gathering place. After establishing a place to meet, the next step members took was to obtain a suitable location to house the fire truck. Land was purchased from the New York Daily Mirror and construction was started on the firehouse in August 1936. Through the efforts of its members organizing dances and raffles and the help from generous contributors, the Fire Company had become a fully functioning fire company just one year after organizing. Shortly after their first anniversary in December 1936, the Fire Company welcomed the Ladies Auxiliary of the Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company. The Auxiliary performed remarkable work for the firefighters and are credited with the company's steadfast progress. The Ladies Auxiliary spent many nights supplying hot coffee in the freezing weather while the members were engaged with firefighting duties. The passing years have seen continued improvements for the Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company. In the year 2002, the company moved across the street to their new home. However, the old firehouse still continues to serve the community as a substation for the Parsippany Rescue and Recovery Unit. In 2007 the Company added a 75 ft. Pierce Ladder Truck. The Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company continues to welcome new members into an organization dedicated to protecting their community and living out their motto: ``Neighbor protecting and helping neighbor.'' Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Lake Parsippany Volunteer Fire Company, District #3 as they celebrate 75 years of community service.