Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Congressman Dan Flood as his legacy is honored today, November 25, 2003, at King's College in Wilkes-Barre. The occasion will celebrate the Congressman's 100th Birthday, 10 years after his passing. Although it has been over 2 decades since he has served in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dan Flood's record of accomplishments and the legacy he left are still alive and well. Congressman Flood and I worked on several legislative initiatives together. Spearheading the effort to shape the recovery package for Northeastern Pennsylvania following the floods left in the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes stands out as an example of Congressman Flood's responsiveness to the district he loved. Mr. Speaker, I insert in my remarks at this point the complete text of a story printed in the Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice on the legacy of Dan Flood. Legendary Legacy It has been 23 years since he left Washington and nine years since his death in 1994. Congressman Daniel J. Flood became a legend in his own time while in office, and remained a much-respected popular figure for 14 years after. The fact that old friends, public officials, and news media will gather at King's College on Tuesday to observe his 100th birthday is yet another indication of just how much his long life of service to the country and his region meant. Much of the Flood years by way of public papers and memorabilia are housed at King's College, through an agreement Flood set up in 1964 with Mary Barrett, longtime college librarian. In the Flood collection room are tens of thousands of pieces of correspondence, hundreds of photographs, awards, plaques, and seals of the office he held and the departments of government with which he dealt for so many years. It is traditional in assessing the Congressman's career that consideration comes on two levels--the federal government in Washington and the 11th Congressional District in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Until 1966, he represented Luzeme County. But after the Supreme Court's famous ``one man, one-vote'' decision, the state's congressional districts were realigned. Flood's territory expanded to include Carbon and Columbia counties. In 1972, as part of the decennial reapportionment, Montour and Sullivan counties were added. Flood's lasting legacy on the national scene usually centers on his three decades of policy to keep the Panama Canal in U.S. control, the unending crusade to promote the so called captive nations of eastern Europe which were under Soviet domination, and his powers as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Flood secured membership on the funding panel in 1949, and kept it throughout the end of his congressional service on January 31, 1980. His senior role on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, where he served for nearly 30 years, was significant in such areas as funding new weapons systems, supporting the Vietnam War and keeping the Tobyhanna Army Depot in business. In fact, it was his strong relations with the most senior Department of Defense military and civilian commanders that enabled him to gain permanent legend status for his role in the recovery of the Agnes disaster in 1972. The effort was led from his emergency headquarters at the Naval Reserve Center in Avoca. In 1966, after less than three years of service on the appropriations subcommittee for Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, election defeat for two colleagues and the unexpected death of the panel's chairman thrust Flood into the chairmanship of what quickly became an awesome assignment. Flood handled it well--for the country and his district. President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the creation of the Great Society, a program unprecedented in scope of social, educational, and vocational opportunities, in which several million Americans benefited. The assignment for funding policy for the entire program fell upon Chairman Flood and his subcommittee. During the 14 years of his chairmanship, the National Institute of Health budget increased six-fold, research for cancer intensified new federal programs for educational development sprung up, and many national health and research centers were created. Also, for the first time, the government offered support for psychiatric training, practical nursing and specialized education. It was his clout in the appropriations process that had much to do with his successful leadership in the enactment of the 1969 legislation which created the Black Lung program for first retired coal miners, and later secured benefits for their widows. By the time of his retirement a decade later, his constituents alone received several hundred million dollars of benefits. The powerful subcommittee assignment brought a multitude of benefits for the folks back home. Funds were obtained to help construct the new library at King's College. The first family practice medicine program between Wilkes University and Hahnemann University in Philadelphia was inaugurated. Students could now take many of their medical school classes on the Wilkes University campus. The first federally funded rural health center on Route 940 in White Haven opened, with others in the area soon to follow. The regional mental health center, headquartered in Nanticoke, was the first of its kind in the country. Marywood University's School of Social Work gained national recognition because of its network of services funded by Washington. Beyond the realm of the Washington scene and significant projects for his district, it was another legend, that of individual constituent service, for which Flood perhaps became best known. There was, it seemed, no aspect of human need in which the government could not play a part and that Flood did not deliver assistance. Flood's long public career brought many types of recognition. There were 13 honorary degrees, the top national awards of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Disabled American Veterans, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and hundred more. The lasting tribute that the congressman treasured most, however, was the naming of Daniel J. Flood Elementary School in the north end of Wilkes-Barre in his honor. The school is located just a few blocks from the simple, family home where his devoted wife, Catherine, resides to this day. The ceremony in Flood's honor will be held Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. in the King's College chapel at North Franklin and Jackson streets. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Flood's wife, Catherine, who will be present at the ceremony today, was indeed a partner in the Congressman's career and family. His loyal staffers and allies such as Michael Clark, John McKeown and Councilman Jim McCarthy, serve as a tribute to how Dan Flood conducted himself as a Congressman. My Colleagues, Congressman Flood serves as a model of responsiveness to the people he represented and I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with him over the years. He is indeed a legend.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The bill before us is an excellent piece of legislation. It advances consumer protection. It combats identity theft. And it allows businesses to operate efficiently when offering credit. Moreover, the bill before us is a model of how the legislative process should work on a bipartisan basis. We held numerous hearings on the legislation. We deliberated on these matters thoroughly. We worked with one another on a bipartisan basis. The results of our efforts produced a bill that originally passed the House overwhelmingly. If we fail to extend the expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act before the end of this year, conflicting state laws could place financial institutions in a difficult compliance position, and the current efficiencies in obtaining credit could significantly decrease. We would, moreover, create more difficulties for our already struggling economy. The Fair Credit Reporting Act and its 1996 amendments, in my view, have created a nationwide consumer credit system that works increasingly well. This law has expanded access to credit, lowered the price of credit, and accelerated decisions to grant credit. One reason that the law works so well is the establishment of a uniform system of national standards for credit reporting. As my colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported creating these state preemptions in the early 1990s. I also believe that we should extend them now. In addition to extending the expiring preemptions of state law, H.R. 2622 will make a number of important improvements to current law with respect to consumer protection. These provisions, among other things, will improve the accuracy of and correction process for credit reports, and establish strong privacy protections for consumers' sensitive medical information. Furthermore, identity theft is a growing problem in our country. A recent report by the Federal Trade Commission found that 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years. I am therefore particularly pleased that H.R. 2622 includes several provisions designed to combat these crimes and aid consumers. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to again commend the Ranking Member of the Committee [Mr. Frank] for his work leading to a very strong bill, as well as the gentlelady from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] for her important work on identity theft. As I have already noted, we also worked on a bipartisan basis and in a pragmatic way with the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Oxley] and the Chairman of the Subcommittee [Mr. Bachus] to produce a very worthwhile legislative product in the House and in the conference with the Senate on which I served. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2622 contains many important consumer protection provisions in a framework of uniform national standards. It is a good bill. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, and if the FTC's public awareness campaign increases their understanding of the opt-out, consumers will make more informed better decisions. Does the gentleman agree?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, if I may, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle to support one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation. I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the ranking member of the subcommittee on our side of the aisle for a job well done. And the fact that we set a new course of activity here in the House as to how this function of legislation should be done from not only the subcommittee, the full committee, the House and Senate, and the conference committee, but now as they work back today, I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the Federal FTC advertising campaign. Section 213 of the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to increase public awareness regarding the availability of consumer rights to opt out of receiving prescreened credit offer solicitations. Is that his understanding as well? I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman share with me the understanding that the FTC's public awareness campaign is to be designed to increase public awareness, not only of the right to opt out of receiving prescreened solicitations, but also of the benefits and consequences of opting out?

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the conference report on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. While I wholeheartedly support providing a prescription drug benefit to our Nation's seniors, I cannot support this bill in its current form because it does more harm than good. Since the House of Representatives first began debating the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, I have consistently maintained that this proposal must adhere to four key principles to garner my support. In my view, we must create a benefit that is affordable, easy to administer, nationally available, and comprehensive. I believe that the bill crafted by the conference committee falls short on all counts. In addition, there are many other provisions folded into this bill that will substantially alter the Medicare system as we know it. These provisions would privatize the program, cause millions of seniors to lose their prescription drug coverage through their employers, and result in insufficient reimbursements for some Medicare providers. These ill-crafted proposals also influenced my decision to vote against this bill. affordable prescription drugs In working to create a prescription drug benefit, we must ensure that the plan is affordable for Medicare participants. The benefit that is outlined in this legislation, however, will provide little relief for the senior citizens in my district. Because the plan requires sizable premiums, deductibles and copayments, seniors can still expect to pay between 50 and 80 percent of the cost of their prescriptions. This bill also creates a gap in coverage that will leave millions of seniors with drug costs between $2,250 and $3,600 without any benefit, even though they continue to pay premiums. While some may conclude that this is a good start to providing a prescription drug benefit, I disagree. We must do more to make prescription drugs affordable. Seniors across the country, and especially in my district, cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars each year in prescription drug costs. Those seniors living on fixed incomes must already sacrifice on other necessities in order to afford their costly medications. These seniors need immediate relief and this legislation will not provide that help. In addition to the cost-sharing provisions of this bill, the benefit does not even go into effect for another two years. In the interim, seniors will receive a discount drug card that will provide only minimal relief. This legislation also purports to protect low-income senior citizens. Individuals at the poverty level will not pay premiums under the program and will have copayments of only $1 to $3 for each prescription. In addition, for individuals slightly above the poverty level, assistance with premiums and the deductible will be available. These individuals, however, will be subject to an assets test. Individuals must have less than $6,000 in assets to receive the benefit while married couples must have less than $9,000 in assets. Therefore, any low-income senior who owns a home, a car, or any other large asset will not be eligible for this financial assistance. In my view, we should not force senior citizens to choose between selling their homes and getting their prescription drugs. In addition, this legislation does nothing to address the high cost of prescription drugs. Under the current bill, there is no methodology for insurance companies to negotiate for lower drug prices. If the program were administered through Medicare, the Government could negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower, more affordable prices because the program would cover a larger number of seniors. Furthermore, with my support, the House recently passed legislation that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from 24 foreign countries. These medications are often the same as those sold in the United States. They are, however, sold at a much lower price. Unfortunately, this legislation provides only for the reimportation of drugs from Canada and requires that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration certify that the reimportation of drugs is safe. While this may seem like progress, it is not. The Food and Drug Administration has already indicated its unwillingness to consider such a certification. Consequently, this legislative sleight of hand on drug reimportation will not increase the availability of affordable prescription drugs in the United States. ease in administration A Medicare prescription drug plan must also be easy to administer. The proposal before us fails to meet this standard. This plan will create a complicated system of payments and programs. As a result, it will be difficult to administer. In particular, senior citizens should not have to worry about whether the amount of money they spend on prescriptions during the year will leave them paying the whole amount of their drug costs at some point during the year as this bill does. Seniors who annually spend more than $2,250 for prescription drugs will find themselves without any coverage at all for a portion of the year. In order to remain in the program, however, these seniors will need to continue to pay the monthly premium, whether the program provides assistance or not. Such a system will create confusion for seniors. This benefit should provide a sense of security for the elderly, who are used to receiving their benefits through the Medicare program. Instead, this complicated program will only serve to provide older Americans with more worries about their health care needs. nationwide availability An effective Medicare prescription drug plan must also be available nationwide. By making the benefit available through private insurance companies, there is no way to ensure that benefits will be equal across the country. in an area like Northeastern Pennsylvania, this scheme would have a devastating effect. By moving towards privatization, areas like mine would be disadvantaged because insurance companies would not be enticed to operate there. Northeastern Pennsylvania has a higher concentration of older residents than most areas in the country, and insurance companies will not want to operate in our area because they would not find it profitable, unless they charge exorbitant premiums. As a result, the government fallback provision would engage, but it would still result in these seniors paying more than those in other areas across the country. We have tried such a scheme before. In 1997, we created the Medicare+Choice program. This failed experiment operated in Northeastern Pennsylvania for awhile. Initially, this program provided tens of thousands of seniors in our area with prescription drug benefits. Insurance companies, however, discovered that they could not make a profit because of the economics of the region. As a result, they abandoned the program, leaving thousands of senior citizens without affordable prescription drugs once again. By providing a prescription drug benefit through private insurance companies, we can expect this legislation to result in a similar outcome for Northeastern Pennsylvanians. In addition, this faulty Medicare plan already anticipates that there will be a problem with providing prescriptions through private plans in areas like Northeastern Pennsylvania. Included in the bill is a provision to set aside $12 billion to pay insurance incentives to provide the prescription drug benefit. One must ask why, if we already anticipate the failure of the program, we are not considering alternatives, such as adding the benefit through Medicare. Comprehensive Benefits Finally, a prescription drug program must be comprehensive. Under a government program, seniors should have access to any drug prescribed by their doctor and the program should cover the costs of that drug. This bill, however, establishes a limited list of categories and classes of drugs, and only these drugs will be covered under the program. Hence, this exclusion will leave many seniors to cover more costly medications and experimental treatments out of their own pockets. Privatization of Medicare In addition to the prescription drug coverage, there are other changes made to ``reform'' Medicare by this legislation. If passed, for example, this legislation would put in place a radical system to privatize Medicare. For example, rather than providing a prescription drug benefit through the current Medicare system, it will, as I have previously noted, instead be offered through private insurance companies, which can profit from their participation in the prescription drug program. Once the system is in place it will be difficult to go back and make the necessary changes to make the prescription drug benefit affordable, easy to administer, available nationwide, and comprehensive. Earlier this year, I supported the Democratic version of this legislation that would have provided prescription drugs through Medicare and achieved these objectives. We should be considering that bill today. This bill will also change the way the current Medicare program is run and move it towards a total privatization of the benefits Americans have worked their whole lives for and have come to depend on in their golden years. In 2010, this legislation would create a premium support demonstration program. This program would require seniors to enroll in a private plan and would provide a voucher for the cost of the insurance premiums. In addition, this bill would break the country into sections, providing different benefits in each. Therefore, the amount of money a person in Northeastern Pennsylvania pays could be substantially higher than the amount paid by a senior living in another part of the country. In my view, this program will move the country on the slippery slope towards the total privatization of Medicare. Rather than providing health care benefits to senior citizens that are guaranteed, money would instead be provided to insurance companies to support seniors in a private program. We should not allow Medicare to wither on the vine. There is also no reason to believe that other benefits, such as Social Security, would not also eventually be privatized if we begin to privatize Medicare now. Provider Issues This prescription drug bill also seeks to increase Medicare payment to physicians and hospitals. I must acknowledge that some of the provisions in this bill would provide relief to the doctors and hospitals in my area. In particular, the bill's provision altering the weight given to labor costs when determining the reimbursement rate for an area would provide millions of dollars to the hospitals in my district. In addition, physicians who are anticipating a 4.5 percent cut in their payment through Medicare would instead receive a 1.5 percent increase. Further, this bill provides additional funding for rural hospitals and for teaching hospitals. For hospitals like the ones in my district, this legislation provides only minimal relief and these changes should not be used as a justification for voting for this bill. As one hospital administrator in my district said, ``If you are dying of thirst in a desert, even a drop of water looks good.'' Rather than providing a band-aid fix to these hospitals experiencing genuine financial difficulties, we should have worked to equalize reimbursements across the country. In addition, there are portions, of this bill that will have severe impacts on the providers in my district. For example, the legislation provides for a system to competitive bidding for durable medical equipment to begin in 2007. This change in the program will have a devastating effect on the numerous small- and medium-sized medical equipment providers in my district. The competitive bidding system will cause a race to the bottom, resulting in cost cutting measures like layoffs and the loss of services provided for users of durable medical equipment. Retiree Coverage Reduced Beyond privatizing Medicare, this legislation will result in millions of retirees losing their employer-sponsored drug coverage, dealing an irreversible blow to the employer-based system that is the backbone of our Nation's health care system. Employer-sponsored retiree health benefits are the single greatest source of drug coverage for retirees, providing benefits to one in three Medicare beneficiaries. They also generally offer the best coverage available--generous benefits and low- cost sharing. The Congressional Budget Office, however, projects that 2.7 million seniors in employer-based retiree plans will lose the coverage they have today due to the discriminatory treatment of seniors with retiree coverage in this legislation. As a result, those individuals would be forced into the flawed prescription drug program outlined in this measure. Men and women who have worked their whole lives with knowledge that they will have health and prescription drug benefits in their retirement should not be forced into a program that could leave them with inadequate benefits. Closing In sum, I cannot support this legislation. It falls short of providing seniors with an affordable, widely available, easily administered, and comprehensive prescription drug benefit. It will privatize the program and it will result in millions of retirees losing coverage through their former employers. Ultimately, this legislation will hurt senior citizens more than it will help them. We should do better for Americans in their golden years by defeating this bill and drafting a new one.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further requests for time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for a job well done and the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for a job well done. We have the unusual experience in the House of Representatives in the Financial Services industry of having a collegial relationship on both sides of the aisle, and this piece of legislation reflects that. We certainly look for a continuing of that type of collegial relationship, and, again, my compliments to the chairman and to the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with approximately 95 million investors and $7 trillion in assets, mutual funds constitute a major component of our securities industry. Mutual funds became a dominant force in our capital markets because they have democratized investing for millions of average Americans, greatly facilitating their ability to acquire a diversified portfolio. Before September, many authorities and experts had also generally extolled the reliability and integrity of the industry. During the last 2 months, however, we have learned of alleged and actual instances of wrongdoing at more than a dozen mutual fund families with more than $2.5 trillion in assets under management. The most serious transgressions brought to light so far have involved market timing abuses, late trading, and preferential portfolio disclosures to industry insiders. The current evidence also suggests that additional announcements of misconduct in the mutual fund industry will continue to proliferate in the months ahead. A recent survey by the Securities and Exchange Commission found that 30 percent of responding broker-dealers assisted market timers in some way. It also revealed that more than 25 percent of answering broker-dealers reported that customers had placed or confirmed mutual fund orders after the market closed and received the preferential closing price. These misdeeds and findings have caused great and considerable concern for average American investors who had placed their trust and hard-earned savings in accounts at mutual fund companies. The widening investigation by State and Federal authorities has also resulted in a reevaluation of the mutual fund industry's business practices and regulatory oversight. These budding inquiries have caused me considerable unease as well. It is completely and absolutely unacceptable for securities professionals, who have an obligation to serve the best interests of their customers, to place their own interests first and to provide preferential treatment to selected insiders. In my view, we have an obligation to American investors to monitor these developments and take action to prevent further abuses. Before news of the mutual fund industry scandals broke in September, the Committee on Financial Services approved a mutual fund reform bill by a voice vote. In general, H.R. 2420 seeks to enhance the disclosures of the mutual fund fees and costs to investors, improve corporate governance for mutual funds, and heighten the awareness of boards about mutual funds activities. A manager's amendment attached today to H.R. 2420 makes several additions to the reported bill. Several of these changes address the recently discovered problems in the mutual fund industry. For example, the bill will now allow for an increase in redemption fees to reduce the ability of market timers to profit from their transactions. The bill also now requires the Commission to act to strengthen audit trails to guard against late trading. Although each of these modifications generally improve H.R. 2420, I remain concerned that we may have rushed to judgment in these matters. The manager's amendment would have benefited from a more thorough vetting by the Securities and Exchange Commission, State regulators, and other experts. We should have made technical improvements to the bill to ensure its workability. We also have missed an opportunity to consider other worthy reform ideas. We could have created a system to better protect mutual fund investors against fraud by expanding fidelity bonding requirements. We could have additionally required mutual fund managers to make the same disclosures about their personal transactions that we already mandate senior corporate executives to make. The Investment Company Act further requires that mutual funds be organized and operated in the best interests of shareholders. We, therefore, could have considered adding legislative language to establish a fiduciary responsibility of mutual fund boards to ensure that funds are also organized and operated in such a way. Finally, we might have worked to heighten the scrutiny of the joint management of mutual funds and hedge funds within the same investment company to prevent conflicts of interest. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that H.R. 2420 does not include any of the regulatory enhancements that the Securities and Exchange Commission specifically requested earlier this year and that are contained in H.R. 2179, the Securities Fraud Deterrence and Investor Restitution Act. These proposals would increase the level of fines the Commission may impose against wrongdoers, improve its ability to return money to swindled investors, and enhance the agency's enforcement authorities. Each of these administrative proposals would protect mutual fund investors more immediately and more effectively than the bill we are now considering. Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity to review these worthy ideas and adopt a more comprehensive, stronger, and refined mutual fund bill when it considers these matters next year. That said, we need to advance the legislative process today so that we can eventually better protect average investors from further transgressions by unscrupulous and unprincipled participants in the mutual fund industry. Although imperfect, H.R. 2420 takes some steps to restore accountability and reestablish investor trust. We should, therefore, approve the bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, mutual funds have successfully worked to help millions of middle-class Americans to successfully save for an early retirement, purchase a vacation home, afford a dream vacation, pay for a college education, or cover medical bills or other needs. We need to ensure that this success continues. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, who has been instrumental in working with me on this bill on our side of the aisle.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jim Cadue for his twenty years of service as a Monroe County Commissioner. He was honored on Friday, November 14, 2003 at the Pennsylvania Room of the Camelback Ski Resort in Tannersville Pennsylvania. My colleagues, Jim is a Monroe County legend. He is the first person in the county's illustrious history to be elected to five consecutive terms. Jim served as Chairman from 1984 to 1991. In his elected career, Jim has compiled a list of accomplishments that any elected official would be proud to have. He constructed a new 311-bed county correctional facility and expanded the county administration offices. He established a new salary plan and job classification system for 700 full-time county employees. Jim also led Monroe County to develop and implement an award winning comprehensive plan and a $25 million bond referendum for the purchase of land to be preserved in open space. He also put through an initiative that led to the creation of a corporate office and industrial park totaling 600 acres. Jim also built a new county environmental learning center. He helped save jobs at Tobyhanna Depot and led the effort for a more environmentally friendly solid waste disposal plan. Jim was also the steward for twenty responsible county budgets. Mr. Speaker, Jim Cadue has spent a lifetime creating opportunity and prosperity for the people of Monroe County and at the same time protecting our natural environment for our children and grandchildren. Jim is an active leader in national, state and local organizations. He has served as President of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and Chairman of the National Association of Counties. Locally, he Chairs the Hospice Golf Tournament Committee. Jim is also a member of the Pennsylvania Society, the Lehigh Consistory, American Legion Post #413, the Elks Lodge, and the Pocono Lodge #780 Free and Accepted Masons. It is no surprise that the honor Jim is receiving Friday is not his first. Jim has received the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania's Outstanding Member Award and the Governor's Award for Local Government Excellence from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Jim also served our country in the United States Army Military Police, where he attained the rank of Sergeant E-5. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to work with a person who is so committed to building a brighter future in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Jim is a leader who simply gets the job done for his constituents. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Monroe County Commissioner Jim Cadue as he receives this well-deserved honor.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bishop Timlin, and Dr. James and Mrs. Mary Lou Burne as they are honored by the Little Flower Manor and St. Therese Residence this Friday, November 14, 2003 at the Annual Crystal Rose Dinner at the Woodlands in Wilkes-Barre. Bishop Timlin is appropriately being honored for his stewardship and tireless support of the Little Flower Manor. His determination and hard work made the Saint Therese Residence a reality. For the past twenty five years his dedication and persistence has provided an opportunity for the aged and infirm to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion. Mr. Speaker, as the spiritual leader of the Diocese of Scranton, Bishop Timlin has demonstrated that ``together we can move mountains'' and inspired others to join in helping to make Northeastern Pennsylvania the compassionate place that it is. Jim and Mary Lou are being recognized for their unselfish dedication to many worthy causes. They are co-founders of the Family to Family Thanksgiving Food Basket Program that has served over one hundred thousand needy individuals since 1986. They have also played an active role with the Friends of the Poor, Special Olympics, Youth Association for Retarded Citizens, UNICO, YMCA, and Keystone College. My colleagues, these individuals devote much of their time and effort to help those who are less fortunate. They are leaders in making their communities a better place to live and work. Mr. Speaker, it is sincerely a privilege and honor to represent these community leaders who devote themselves to helping others and building a brighter future for Scranton and Northeastern Pennsylvania. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Bishop Timlin and Dr. James and Mrs. Mary Lou Burne as they receive this well-deserved honor.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Nativity Parish in Scranton, Pennsylvania as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary on November 1st. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to this Parish that has been an integral part of the Scranton community over the last century. The story of the Nativity Parish begins on February 2, 1902 when Reverend Michael J. Hoban, Bishop of Scranton, announced that a new parish would be built on the corner of Hemlock Street and South Webster Avenue. The Parish, built on the same property where the first Catholic Church in Scranton stood, would be called Nativity of Our Lord. Led by Father James A. O'Reilly, the Nativity Parish celebrated its first mass on November 1, 1903 at St. John's T.A.B. hall. It is this date that marks the official beginning of the Nativity Parish. On May 23, 1904, new ground was broken for the present Nativity Church. A few months later, on July 31st, Bishop Hoban laid the first cornerstone. On July 16, 1905, the lower Church was officially dedicated. After Father O'Reilly's passing in the spring of 1907, Reverend John J. Loughran was appointed Pastor of the Nativity. He would remain with the Church until his own passing in the spring of 1940. During his long and distinguished tenure with the Parish, Dr. Loughran oversaw the expansion of the Nativity Parish, including the additions of the Rectory in 1909, upper Church in 1911, and the school and convent in 1933. Mr. Speaker, because of the leadership displayed by Bishop Hoban, Reverend O'Reilly, and Reverend Loughran, the Nativity Parish became an exemplary institution in the city of Scranton. The dedication of these men to both their religion and their community resulted in a beautiful Church being built to serve the residents of Scranton. Today, under the stewardship of Reverend Joseph R. Kelly this congregation remains a vital organization for the city of Scranton and her people. As the new Congressman representing the City of Scranton, it is a privilege to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Nativity Parish.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House of Representatives to Robert and Shirley Fortinsky as they are honored as ``Amudei Tzibor'' or ``Pillars of the Community'' at the 81st Annual Dinner Meeting of Temple Israel on Sunday, November 2nd at the Woodlands Inn and Resort in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Bob and Shirley Fortinsky have built successful businesses and have continued what is a family tradition of hard work and success, commitment to their community, and a focus on the value of education. They both have been long involved in Temple Israel and are noted for their philanthropy and community activism. Robert is a Past President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Temple Israel. He was the Chairman of the 1972 United Jewish Appeal campaign, the 1985 Israel Bond campaign, and the 1989 Pennsylvania drive for the Chair of Jewish Studies at Penn State University. Bob is a past recipient of the B'nai B'rith Lodge Community Service Award and the Anti-Defamation League Distinguished Community Service Award. Shirley is affiliated with organizations focusing on community service, health and the arts. She serves on the Boards of Directors of the Association for the Blind, Family Service Association, the F. M. Kirby Center for the Performing Arts, and the Domestic Violence Service Center. The Wilkes-Barre Jewish Federation presented Shirley with a Distinguished Service Award in 1993. Bob and Shirley, with their deep respect for education, have donated Fortinsky Hall to Wilkes University, helped to create the Center for Technology, and provided the Fortinsky Auditorium to the Penn State Wilkes-Barre campus. A graduate of Penn State following service in the United States Army, Bob presently serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of Penn State University and is a past Chairman of the Board of the Penn State Wilkes-Barre campus. He is a member of the King's College Century Club, Wilkes University's John Wilkes Society, and the Mount Nittany Society of Penn State. Bob is also affiliated with The Luzerne National Bank, the International Textile Society, the Wyoming Business Club, and the Luzerne Foundation. They have two daughters, Jill Fortinsky Schwartz and Judith Null, who are lifelong members of Temple Israel. Shirley and Bob's seven grandchildren attended Temple Israel Religious School and celebrated their respective Bar and Bat Mitzvahs at the Temple. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and privilege to represent these community leaders and to recognize their commitment to the community.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House of Representatives to the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce as they celebrate the region's progress over the past 50 years at their annual dinner Thursday, October 30 at the Wachovia Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, progress doesn't just happen by accident. From the beginning of the creation of the Industrial Fund 50 years ago, it has taken hard work, vision, dedication, and leadership by those who have transformed the area's economy from an aging coal mining town to a diversified economy with a bright future. These leaders, whose accomplishments will be recognized at the dinner celebration, set the goals of elevating the economy by encouraging and supporting business growth, increasing capital investment in the region, and enhancing the area's quality of life by serving as a catalyst for key community projects. My colleagues, while we need to continue to strive toward these ambitious goals, I would like to pay tribute to the business leaders who make up this Chamber and this community for their success in moving us closer to these goals over the past 50 years. Mr. Speaker, this organization has a proud and storied history highlighted by individuals who rose to the occasion and helped transform this region. Charles Weissman, William O. Sword, Frank Burnside, Herbert Morris, Edward Schechter, and many more leaders helped build our economy on a proud tradition of doing what it takes to make northeastern Pennsylvania the best it can be by working in partnership with elected officials and volunteers from the business community. The Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber is relentlessly working in partnership with local, State and Federal officials to rebuild our region's economic base from the ground up. Whether it is working to reclaim mine-scarred land, building and managing five business parks in the region like the new Innovation Center, promoting key community projects like the Arena, the levee raising and riverfront redevelopment projects, or working on the Downtown revitalization efforts, The Chamber serves as a vocal leader on issues and initiatives--from transportation to education, and from diversity to the knowledge economy--that help to advance the Greater Wilkes-Barre community. Most recently, the Chamber deserves commendations for reaching out to neighboring organizations to improve on efforts to bring a more regional approach to economic development, which I strongly support. It has been a pleasure to work with Chamber leaders on many of these important projects during my tenure in office, and I look forward to many more years of productive partnership for the benefit of northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere honor to recognize the business and community leaders of the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce as they celebrate 50 years of progress on Thursday evening.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Father Thomas J. O'Hara as he is honored by the Ethics Institute of Northeastern Pennsylvania at College Misericordia this Thursday, October 23, 2003, at the Woodlands in Wilkes-Barre. Father Tom has been a part of the King's College campus since 1988 and has served as the Professor of Political Science and Vice President of Academic Affairs. About four years ago, Father Tom was chosen to lead King's College as its President. Father Tom is a native of Northeastern Pennsylvania and is involved in many community activities in addition to his demanding schedule as President of the college. He serves on the boards of the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce, the Osterhout Free Library, St. Vincent de Paul Kitchen, the Earth Conservancy, Leadership Wilkes- Barre, City Vest, and the Council of Presidents. He will be honored for his commitment to both civility and ethical leadership. Father Thomas O'Hara is a community icon in Wilkes-Barre who leads by example. I am pleased that he is receiving well-deserved recognition for his ethical and effective leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a man who has played an important leadership role in educating and shaping our future generation in Northeastern Pennsylvania and throughout the nation. His style of leadership and integrity makes him a worthy role model for the students and educators who he comes in contact with as President of King's College. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Father Tom as he receives this well deserved honor.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House of Representatives to Ned McGinley of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania who will be honored at the Ancient Order of Hibernians National President's Dinner Saturday, October 25, 2003 at King's College in Wilkes-Barre. I am proud to say that Mr. McGinley is the first National President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians who is from Northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. McGinley earned this honor through his 25 years of leadership in the Ancient Order of the Hibernians, where he has served on its National Board as Director and National Organizer. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is the oldest and largest Irish- Catholic organization in the United States. It was founded in New York with its roots in Northeastern Pennsylvania around 1836. Mr. McGinley has proved that he is a strong leader and is involved in a variety of activities in the community. Mr. McGinley is a graduate of Wilkes College in Wilkes-Barre and worked as an educator there for over 30 years. He created a Division III wrestling program at King's College and was inducted into the Division III Wrestling Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a man who has displayed a lifetime leadership role in serving his community. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Ned McGinley as he receives this well deserved honor.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, as I did a year ago this month, I rise to address this chamber with a heavy heart. Over the past several days, we have engaged in a debate worthy of this institution's history. These deliberations have focused on providing additional funding for the Administration's Iraqi policy. Specifically, the resolution we are considering today would provide approximately $86.9 billion in emergency funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $18.6 billion of which would be used for ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The debate over the President's policy in Iraq runs deeper than the discussions over the monetary size of this bill. At this moment, before us is the question of how we, as Members of Congress charged with the responsibility to represent our diverse constituencies, should fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. This is an obligation that I take very seriously. After careful consideration of all sides of today's debate, I have decided to vote against the House's initial supplementary appropriations bill. I do so for three primary reasons. First, this proposal would continue to support a foreign policy that lacks a clear objective and fails to identify a well-reasoned plan for removing our troops from the region. Second, it would unfairly burden American taxpayers and future generations. Third, I look forward to a second opportunity to address this issue and vote on an improved bill based on negotiations with the Senate. I further believe that the Congress can, and should, take this time to reevaluate the Administration's approach to Iraq and recommit itself to our constitutional duties. During these debates, many have stressed the importance of supporting our troops who find themselves in harm's way. I share these concerns. The fact of the matter is that Members of Congress on both sides of this debate recognize our responsibility to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave American men and women are serving their country with great distinction and this Congress must ensure that they have the equipment, training, resources and amenities necessary to carry out their duties. I therefore very strongly support the more than $60 billion contained in this bill designated for supporting our troops. Moreover, a vote on this bill is not about whether one political party or one individual Member of Congress supports our armed services. Instead, this debate is a question about how we can most effectively support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, encourage regional stability over the long term, and ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. In a larger context, we must also seek whether this Congress will continue to unquestionable accept the Bush Administration's foreign policy approach to Iraq. Given the chain of events of the past year, I believe that during this debate we should carefully review and studiously scrutinize the Administration's policy on Iraq. Last fall, President Bush and officials within his Administration made the argument to the Congress, to the American people, and to the world community that the threat to the United States posed by Iraq was imminent. They went to great lengths to present information to Members of this House, including personal presentations to me, about Iraq's imminent capabilities to use weapons of mass destruction against our citizens. Based on the evidence presented at that time, particularly pertaining to Iraq's use of mobile facilities to hide its biological weapons research and especially relating to Iraq's ability to use unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver these weapons to specific targets within the United States, I voted to grant the President the specific powers laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Following the failure of the Administration to reach consensus on a unified course of action in the United Nations, the onset of hostilities authorized under that resolution, and the President's subsequent declaration of the end of the major combat operations, the Administration has thus far failed to locate any specified weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the means to deliver them. Moreover, it has uncovered no conclusive evidence of mobile facilities to the best of my knowledge. At this point, the evidence to support the Administration's fundamental premise for going to war--that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country's national security--has not emerged. Given these facts and circumstances, my vote today signals my unwillingness at this time to blindly accept the Administration's policy position on proceeding in Iraq. Until this point, I have given the President the benefit of the doubt. I supported the resolution passed by this House authorizing the use of force. When the President came before this Congress last spring requesting $63 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq, I joined an overwhelming number of my colleagues in supporting his request. At this time, I must demand accountability from this President in his management of the Iraqi effort and the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars that underwrite it. One potential approach for promoting fiscal accountability and ensuring that the Iraqis and Americans support our rebuilding effort over the long term is to demand that American taxpayers have the opportunity to recover their investments in Iraq's reconstruction. Iraq is a country with considerable financial and natural resources. It could harness this capital to pay for the rebuilding of its infrastructure and the completion of new projects. In light of this reality, I presently believe that we should provide the reconstruction funds contained in this emergency spending measure in the form of a loan, not an outright grant. Additionally, before proposing this emergency spending legislation Bush Administration officials had repeatedly heretofore stated that Iraq possessed the financial capability to self-finance its reconstruction efforts. For instance, in February then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, ``Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.'' Additionally, when speaking about Iraq's reconstruction before the Senate Appropriations Committee in March Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, ``I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.'' In contrast to these statements, Administration officials in recent weeks have now argued that Iraq cannot incur additional debt and that the only way to promote stability in Iraq is through the issuance of an outright grant. For example, during his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee just last month, Secretary Rumsfeld averred, ``Iraq is in no position to pay its current debt service, let alone take on more additional debt. If we want to encourage Iraqi self reliance, so that Iraqis can fund their own reconstruction and so that American troops can go home, it would not be helpful to saddle Iraq with more debt it could not be reasonably expected to pay.'' The rhetorical about-face regarding this element of the Bush Administration's policy toward Iraq has been unmistakable and undisputed. Yet these same Administration officials have been remiss in explaining why reality in postwar Iraq has not conformed to their original rhetoric. Is this a question of miscalculation, insufficient planning, or arrogance? Is this perhaps a question of a fundamental misunderstanding of the level of sacrifice required to implement a policy? The Congress has a responsibility to ask these questions and to probe the assumptions underlying the Administration's approach to Iraq in light of this significant, and as yet unexplained, foreign policy turnaround. While I fully recognize the potential logistical difficulties in accessing Iraq's resources to pay for reconstruction efforts, I remain confident that Iraq ultimately will overcome these problems and have the financial capacity to repay these loans to the American people. In the unlikely event that Iraq's financial potential does not emerge, this Congress also can revisit this issue and forgive the loans at a later moment in time. It is, moreover, my understanding that our counterparts in the Senate are actively considering this issue as well, and they have already included a provision in their bill converting at least a portion of the funds appropriated from a grant to a forgivable loan, an approach which I consider fitting. A vote in favor of this emergency spending legislation at this time would essentially send a message that I am satisfied with its content and the policies it supports. Simply stated: I am not. I, therefore, must fulfill my constitutional obligations to discharge the duties of my office, which include oversight of the executive branch, to the best of my abilities. As a result, I will vote against this bill. Just one example of the need to scrutinize this Administration's implementation of reconstruction efforts is the repairs made to an Iraqi cement factory. Rather than spending the $15 million U.S. engineers estimated it would cost to transform the factory into a state-of-the-art facility, our troops worked with Iraqis to make the factory operational at a cost of just $80,000. Moreover, voting against the initial House proposal at this time will, in my view, strengthen the Senate's position as we move into negotiations between the House and Senate on this important legislation and, hopefully, develop a realistic consensus for future action in Iraq. Furthermore, our vote today constitutes just the first step in the legislative process, and it is my strong hope that the coming deliberations on this bill will incorporate a forgivable loan provision or some similar stipulation. Observers should consequently construe my vote following the initial debate in the House over this matter as both evidence of my deep skepticism of the President's current Iraqi policy as well as my position that reconstruction funding should be allocated in the form of a loan to the Iraqi people. The completion of today's proceedings brings to a close the initial debate over this legislation. It, however, should not end congressional evaluation of the President's Iraqi policy. Moving forward, this Congress must demand accountability from the President and officials in his Administration on these matters. Specifically, we should require the President to outline his objectives in Iraq, detail a logical plan and timetable for achieving those goals, and present long-term estimates of the costs of his proposed policies. We must accomplish these tasks while supporting the needs of our troops and their families. The American commitment in Iraq has been thus far an open-ended affair, characterized by daily reports of troops under siege. Now my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has brought to the attention of this House evidence that our troops are, in some cases, lacking the equipment they need and the amenities they deserve while selected favored corporations receive contract awards without participating in a competitive bidding process. In the face of all of these inconsistencies, the Administration additionally has to date failed to locate the imminent threats that served as the basis for war. The Congress consequently should take this opportunity to question these developments and ensure that this legislation and any subsequent allocation of federal funds include appropriate accountability measures. The Constitution vests all legislative powers in us. As Members of this great institution, we should take that responsibility seriously. While the President can, and does, submit legislative proposals for consideration, we have an obligation to our nation's founders, ourselves, and, most importantly, our constituents to deliberate on these matters, make necessary adjustments to them, and enact laws. I have worked with the President in an effort to remove the perceived threat in Iraq and bring greater stability to the region and the world. The developments of the past few months, however, should serve as evidence of the Administration's ineffective planning effort and misunderstanding of the challenges facing our troops. As this Congress works to support our troops, we must now hold the Bush Administration to account and demand that it provide a justification for its further use of taxpayer dollars to support these endeavors. Anything less would represent a failure of this Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities and its leaders to provide clear direction for the future.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Magee Rieter Automotive Systems of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania for winning the ``Supplier of the Year'' award for quality and service for the 11th consecutive time from General Motors Corporation. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Magee Rieter, its President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Katerman and all the employees for winning this International recognition. Not only is this the 11th straight award for Magee Rieter and its employees, they now have the distinction of being the only company in all of North America to earn the honor for so many consecutive years. Each year, less than 100 companies out of 30,000 win this distinction. Additionally, only one other company in the world can match this incredible record of quality. As Mr. Katerman puts it, Magee Rieter manufactures the highest quality fabricated floor carpet and acoustical systems. General Motors is their largest customer. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a company that has been internationally recognized for its commitment to quality, service, technology and its pricing. It is equally rewarding to represent employees who are acclaimed for their hard work and ingenuity.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Neil Oberto for being named the ``Outstanding Italian American'' by the Hazleton Sons of Italy. It is an honor to join the members of this organization in paying tribute to his numerous achievements as he is honored at the Columbus Day Ceremony on Sunday, October 12th. Neil Oberto is the third of four sons born to Anthony and Immaculata (Lombardi) Oberto. He was born and raised in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and has lived there for most of his life. Neil exhibited leadership qualities early on in his life. He is a 1978 graduate of Hazleton High School where he served as the senior class president. He also attended Luzerne County Community College obtaining an Associate Degree in 1980 in Hotel and Restaurant Management, and was employed at a several restaurants and hotels throughout the area. In 1982, Neil took a new direction in his life when he attended Borromeo College of Ohio, a seminary college outside of Cleveland to pursue his bachelor's degree and discern the option of joining the Capuchin Franciscans. He obtained a Bachelor's degree two years later in Social and Behavioral Science. In his senior year of college he was accepted as a postulant with the Capuchins. From 1984-1985, he spent a novitiate year with the Capuchins at their novitiate house outside of Pittsburgh. He returned to Hazleton in August of 1985. Neil pursued a Master's Degree in Rehabilitation Counseling from the University of Scranton and achieved that goal in 1991. He is a Nationally Board Certified Counselor and Licensed as a Professional Counselor. Mr. Speaker, Neil Oberto has been working and volunteering in the social service field for the past 24 years. He began working with mentally challenged adults and children in recreational programs. While in Cleveland he did various apostolic and volunteer work with inner city youth, pastoral care in hospitals, and an inner city nursing facility for the economically underprivileged, along with other inner city service. In Pittsburgh, apostolic work was at a soup kitchen in the ``Hill District'' and hospital pastoral work. Upon his return to Hazleton he was employed at the Keystone Job Corp Center as a Residential Advisor, Luzerne County Children and Youth as a caseworker, and since 1989, Catholic Social Services of Greater Hazleton. He has been serving as Executive Director since 1995. Neil Oberto is very involved in his community. He is involved or has had past affiliation with the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference Adoption Committee, Greater Hazleton Civic Partnership, United Way Child Advocacy Committee, Hazleton Area Housing Coalition, Co-Founder Habitat for Humanity, Tri-Area Joint Recreation Authority, Cranberry Creek Gateway Committee, Keystone Job Corp Center Community Relations Committee, numerous regional and state commitments through work, and a lector, catechism teacher and member of the Holy Name Society at Our Lady of Grace Church in Hazleton. Neil has been awarded the Distinguished Service Award from the Greater Hazleton Jaycees and was presented with a Leadership Award from Project Women in Need by State Representative Katie True. He is married to the former Meralea Petruzzi and is the proud father of four daughters, Danielle, Gina, Sara and Kristina. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a man who is not only a leader in the Hazleton Community, but someone who has devoted his life to helping those who are less fortunate.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Borough of Dunmore, in Lackawanna County, PA, for being nationally recognized once again for its National Night Out Events. I ask that my colleagues pay tribute to Dunmore, its citizens, Police Chief Sal Mecca and Mayor Patrick Loughney for winning this National recognition. This year, Dunmore was named the second best event nationally in the under 15,000 population category. I was proud to participate in this awardwinning Night Out. They won ``First Place'' from 1999 and 2001 for the town's Night Out activities as the best in the Northeastern United States for towns with a population under 30,000. Mr. Speaker, the first National Night Out in Dunmore was a 1-day festival in 1996 where there were just six block parties held. This year, it grew to 20 block parties, a parade, a safety fair and a cookout. Dunmore earned rookie honors in 1996. Its National Night Out has been growing ever since, and the borough prides itself on this 3- day event. The event has been so successful, the city of Scranton and the Borough of Throop got their advice and held successful events as well. This year marked the 20th anniversary of National Night Out. The first year, 400 communities from 23 States took part. This year, 10,000 communities from all 50 States were involved. More than 34 million people participated. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent citizens of the Borough of Dunmore who have shown such a commitment to their community and have been justly recognized nationally for their involvement and spirit.