John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for being responsive to my questions. With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, let me say at the outset I appreciate the gentleman's intent here, and I take at face value and both understand and in large measure agree with his intent to serve to clarify the base provision in which he is acting on this day. Having said that, I do have some concerns. I would disagree with the gentleman's assertion, as I understood it, and I have to apologize, Madam Chairman, because the acoustics were rather difficult and I'm not sure I heard everything the gentleman said, but I do believe he was saying that there was a predicate reality in the underlying language that assumed that military reaction was a given or at least a part of it. I want to make very clear for the record that on our side, Madam Chairman, we feel it is critically important, when speaking on this important issue to the Iranian people, and particularly the Iranian leadership, that they understand that in our mind this is an extraordinarily serious issue. When we were marking up this provision in the full committee, I made the comment that ambiguity, lack of clarity, on world and military affairs has cost us dearly in the past. One can make the argument that at least in significant measure, for example, the Korean War began on ambiguity, a lack of clarity as to what the United States would do if the Chinese and North Koreans were to take military action, as they ultimately did. Similarly, when Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait, I think you can make the case that Saddam Hussein misinterpreted the American position as to what the reaction of this Nation would be upon such an invasion. So we think that clarity should not be confused with militarism. Clarity should not be mistaken for belligerence; that clarity, particularly when we are talking in matters of warfare, is important. Having said that, Madam Chairman, I do believe that Chairman Spratt, the distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, has an idea that bears consideration here. I do have a question. I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina, and this is not part of the prearranged script and I'm not trying to play ``gotcha,'' but I was curious if the gentleman would yield for a question that I would like to pose to him.

Mr. McHUGH. I appreciate the gentleman's response. If the gentleman would be so kind, if I may pose another question under my time to him. What I am concerned about less, the structure of the gentleman's amendment. I understand it. I think there are some concerns that I have with respect to definitional and clarity issues. But putting those aside, can the gentleman help me better understand why, under the defense bill, this amendment, and I am speaking now, if I may, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, does not subject this bill to sequential referral?

Mr. McHUGH. Sequential referral. In order words, why this bill, with the inclusion of this amendment that clearly transfers into the intelligence title of our U.S. Code, would not require that HPSCI, the security committee, national intelligence committee of the House, would not have jurisdiction.

Mr. McHUGH. With all due respect, does your side have an opinion from the House Parliamentarian that the adoption of this language would not subject the bill either on the floor or in conference to sequential referral?

Mr. McHUGH. Can I inquire as to what the remaining time may be.

Mr. McHUGH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had said earlier, Madam Chairman, that I do have some substantive concerns or at least semantic concerns about the language of the amendment. And I think it's important, if I may, to state at least at this moment one or two of those for the record. I am concerned about the vagueness of some of the language. For example, the underlying amendment, the language that this amendment seeks to change and to amend, requires the Congress to have a clear milestone. One is, quite simply, does Iran have sufficient material for a weapon. I think most people understand the language behind that. This language, however, says it requires the President to notify Congress within 15 days of Iran having, ``met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program.'' I don't object to that goal, but I do become concerned about defining what those milestones are. Milestones in the process of development of nuclear weapons may be self-evident to the scientific community, but for purposes of law, I am not aware, and if I am wrong, then I need to be instructed today on this debate. I am not aware that they are defined in law. So I think we are leaving a problem there that perhaps as we move into the conference we can----

Mr. McHUGH. I'd be happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman from California in his clarity, as always. I do have another point or two I'd like to make, Madam Chairman, that I think should be stated for the record as we go forward to conference. But for the moment, in terms of time balance, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. I would ask again, because I know we are getting down toward the end, what the remaining time balances are, please.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, in the 15 seconds I have left, I think the gentleman makes some good points. Obviously a broader-based look at this is more efficacious than a narrow-based look. I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for trying to refine what I think is a very important provision. I would say as I noted, the comments that I made as to clarity have no intent to in any way besmirch the perspective, the professionalism that the gentleman always brings, and I look forward to producing a good amendment in this regard when we reach conference. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said, the concerns that I have, and I think it's fair to say our side have with respect to a major part of this amendment centers on semantics. Normally, that can be considered a minutia. But when you're dealing with questions of nuclear capability, when you're dealing with questions of sending a message from country A to country B, in this case, United States to Iran, I think semantics and definitional issues are very, very important. I appreciated the dialogue that the gentleman from South Carolina and the distinguished ranking member of the full committee had with respect to the question of milestones, but I also have a concern about the language with respect to the reporting requirement with the fact that should Iran speed up, slow down, or stop, and I will quote now, Madam Chairman, ``any significant element'' of these programs. I certainly don't disagree with the intent of that language. But, again, we are writing law, we are not writing narrative, we are not writing a novel. The fact that any significant element is not a definitional perspective concerns me. So, again, I would simply say for the record, as we go forward, while the intent of this amendment and the prospect of it is positive, there are some concerns on clarity, there are some concerns on definition. I think we need to continue to focus on in the conference and I would hope as we go forward, we can help clarify those kind of issues. I don't know if the gentleman on the other side has any more speakers. Assuming that he might, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 347, unfortunately, during the vote I was unavoidably detained off the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious comments. Let me start off by returning the favor. This is a monumental bill if for no other reason than it bears the name of the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter. It also is a bill that represents the departure of two other very senior members of the Defense Committee, the great gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton, and my classmate, Terry Everett, from the great State of Alabama. All three of these gentlemen have served this committee in the grade tradition in which it is steeped so deeply, and that is of bipartisanship, and of the focus that the important thing, the only thing is to field the finest military the world has ever seen. And through their collective service, they have, indeed, done that. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished chairman, for moving the resolution that ultimately named this bill after my dear friend, my great leader, Duncan Hunter, but also, I think, forms the basis of what can only be described as a very, very good bill. To Chairwoman Davis, the gentlelady with whom I have deeply enjoyed serving, I want to commend her for bringing to the floor tonight a Personnel piece, a mark that is predicated upon bipartisanship, predicated upon openness. And I thank her for allowing all of us, myself, of course, but equally, if not more importantly, the other members of the subcommittee and the full committee on both sides of the aisle, the opportunity to have meaningful input to its outcome. You heard her talk very eloquently, very adequately, very reasonably and correctly about the very, very positive provisions of this Personnel mark. Increases end strength, something this subcommittee has been working on for a number of years to relieve the pressure on those men and women who step forward, who have paid the price of stop loss, who have paid the price of extended deployments. This will help them immeasurably. The active role of the Army Guard and Reserve and their role in this, so important, the increases to that. The pay increases that continue the efforts that we had begun some years ago, where the pay gap between the private and the military sectors was 13 percent and has now been taken below 3 percent, that we intend, I hope, collectively, to fully continue education and training opportunities for military spouses, recognizing they are part of this battle as well. From impact aid to survivor indemnity allowances to TRICARE fees, and on and on and on, this is a bill that every Member of this House should, and I deeply hope will, support. I said this is a very, very good bill. In all honesty, it could have been a great bill. It could have been a great bill except for a number of important, but I think insufficient, responses to the challenges we had. A problem that I faced, when I had the honor of being the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, was predicated upon the administration's, I would maintain, ill-advised proposal to begin the necessary path toward reforming the cost of military health care on the backs of the recipients. They have proposed it again this year.

Mr. McHUGH. It was a serious challenge that was resolved in a way that I can honestly say can only be described as a budgetary gimmick. Rather than using all the tools available to it, the Democratic leadership--not the leadership on this committee, but the Democrat leadership of this House--chose, instead, to take from the retirees, those who have already served, a hit of 1 percent of one month of their retiree pay. They had other options and tools available to them, and I honestly believe they took the easy way. I hope we can, from this point forward, use the opportunity of conference and discussion with the administration and, of course, with the Senate to find a better resolution. Also, I think the fact that the House Budget Resolution that was supposed to be passed today, but I assume will be passed in the very near future, offered a hope, offered the opportunity for the Budget chairman to make decisions about reallocations to address such things as the widows tax, to address other kinds of problems, were not utilized. And we lost a very important opportunity that, whatever one may think about the Democrat Budget Resolution, provided for the first time hope, provided for the first time opportunity, and that has been squandered. Still, in the days ahead, I think we can take this very, very good bill and elevate it to a great bill. For the purposes of tonight, however, for the purposes of those who worked hard on it, the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman from California, all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, this is a bill that reflects, in very fine form, the bipartisan approach of one of the grandest committees, one of the most important committees under the Constitution this House has ever created, the Armed Services Committee, and it deserves our support.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. At this time, I would like to recognize the hard work of the Gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and the other conferees that culminated in the conference report before the House today. I also would like to take a moment to mention several items of interest to my constituents in northern and central New York. Very simply, I could not overstate the importance of dairy farming to the economy of New York's 23rd Congressional District, which I represent. In fact, its importance is readily apparent when one considers that the 2002 Census of Agriculture reported there were 1,989 dairy farms with 188,305 milk cows in the 11 counties that comprise the district. Accordingly, I am pleased that the conference report extends and expands the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program, continues the Dairy Price Support and Dairy Indemnity Programs, and reauthorizes the Dairy Export Incentive Program. The conference report also includes a provision to create a Northern Border Regional Commission, which I have been working on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Michaud, and others to enact because it will help further economic development. There is no question this assistance is needed, particularly when one considers that in 2000, seven of the 11 counties I have the privilege of representing had poverty rates in excess of the national rate of 12.4 percent and three--Franklin, Oswego and St. Lawrence counties--had poverty rates in excess of 14 percent. Similarly, from 2004 to 2006, eight of my constituent counties had unemployment rates in excess of the national average. I was also pleased that the conference report will provide $466 million for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, $10 million annually for efforts to address colony collapse disorder in honey bees, grants and guaranteed loans for broadband development, tax incentives for agricultural businesses to enhance chemical security, and at least $1.19 billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Finally, the conference report increases the amount available for direct loans to farmers and authorizes $120 million to fund pending rural infrastructure programs of importance to my constituents such as the Water and Waste Disposal Grants and the Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit Rider Programs.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and commend the State of Israel on the 60th anniversary of its independence. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. Within 11 minutes, the United States became the first nation to give de facto recognition to the State of Israel. America's friendship with Israel continues to this day. Having visited Israel several times, I know well that Israelis and Americans share the common values of peace, freedom and democracy. The modem state of Israel is a safe haven for Jews from all corners of the world. Since its founding, Israel has been a home to Holocaust survivors and their descendants, as well as Jews fleeing oppression. While strides have been made to combat global anti-Semitism, I am disappointed that recent reports indicate a rise in anti-Semitism worldwide. A strong and secure Israel is vital to America's national interest. Israelis know all too well the terror of indiscriminate homicide attacks by radical terrorists. The enemies of Israel have also targeted their attacks against Americans. The terrorist group Hamas is responsible for the deaths of at least 26 Americans, including teenagers and young children. In 1983 Hezbollah bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Hezbollah was also involved in the bombing of the United States Marine barracks, in an attack that claimed the lives of 241 American servicemen. These groups operate with support and funding from Iran, a country whose president has called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.'' Hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel, terrorizing innocent civilians living near the Gaza border. However, Israelis have shown tremendous courage in the face of these hostilities. Despite the constant threat of annihilation, Israelis have made the desert bloom. They have created a flourishing culture and society. Israel has also developed a thriving economy and is the world's leader in the development of many cutting edge industries. Israeli technology has even been used to help keep our troops safe in battle in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating the State of Israel on its 60th anniversary, and express my sincere hope that the next 60 years come with peace and security for our close friend and ally.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today with sadness to note the recent passing of a constituent, Mr. Charles ``Charlie'' Niles, a resident of Plattsburgh, New York, who died at the age of 85 on April 2, 2008. I greatly appreciate the service Charlie provided to our Nation as a member of the U.S. Army during World War II and for his 33 years of service as a part-time immigration inspector at the Port of Champlain in Champlain, New York. In addition to that service, Charlie also served the community of Champlain, New York. Specifically, he taught English at Northeastern Clinton Central School. Charlie retired in 1988 and was a member of the New York State Retired Teacher's Association. I am advised that he made Shakespeare, Steinbeck, and other classics come alive for his students while teaching them to speak and write the ``King's English.'' Accordingly, I now wish to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife of 62 years Elizabeth L. Niles, sons Charles A. Niles, Jr. and John Niles, daughter Marilyn Donohue and grandchildren Adam C. Niles, Jennifer L. Niles, Ryan J. Donohue, and Timothy B. Donohue.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution concerning the International Joint Commission, IJC, and water level management on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. I am deeply disappointed that it has come to the point where such action by Congress is necessary. I have the distinct privilege of representing the entirety of the American span of the St. Lawrence River, as well as a significant portion of Lake Ontario. As a native of the area, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the selection of an appropriate water level management plan to my constituents who live, work, and vacation along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Great Lakes represent the largest supply of fresh water on the planet and this vast supply of fresh water flows out to the saltwater of the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River. However, following the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Moses-Saunders Power Project in the 1950's, there was no choice but to come up with a plan for ``artificially'' regulating this outflow. Unfortunately, the current water level regulation plan, known as ``1958 D with Deviations,'' has resulted in significant negative environmental impacts on fisheries and wildlife throughout the region I represent in Congress. For example, the current regime has resulted in the substantial derogation of at least 33,000 acres of wetlands, allowing a thick cattail monoculture to expand and replace large areas of biodiverse meadow marsh, resulting in the loss of habitat for a wide range of aquatic, avian, and upland species. Since 2000, the IJC's International Lake Ontario St. Lawrence River, LOSL, study has spent more than $20 million in taxpayer money to develop an approach to water level regulation that would best suit the environmental and economic needs of this vital natural resource. And, over the years, the IJC has devised plan after plan to achieve that goal--soliciting extensive public comment to fully vet these proposals with the residents who are most affected. Yet, for all of that effort, the IJC has chosen to waste years of research and millions of dollars in taxpayer money, in addition to ignoring significant amounts of public comment, by proposing a brand new water levels regime ``Plan 2007.'' Moreover, I am very concerned that the lack of transparency in the IJC final development of ``Plan 2007'' was created in the shadows and with little or no outside input. It is clear to anyone living in this region that the wrong approach to water level regulation can have significant negative impacts. We have all seen firsthand the devastating consequences that the existing regime has had on the environment. The status quo is simply unacceptable. We need a comprehensive and effective approach to regulate the water levels of both Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Thus, like many residents along the lake and river, I invested time and effort to support the approach I believed best met the environmental and economic requirements of the region--Plan B+. I believe B+ appropriately balances sound environmental principles with the needs of both residents and recreational boaters, while, at the same time, providing benefits for the Moses-Saunders Power Project. Virtually every regional and environmental organization that has examined this process agree that Plan B+ is based on sound scientific principles and is the one approach that best meets all the needs of the various stakeholders. Unfortunately, despite the public vetting of three proposed plans, on March 28, 2008, the IJC released ``Plan 2007,'' which had not previously been submitted to the public for comment or fully evaluated by the scientific community and the State of New York, as the proposed water level management plan for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Plan 2007 does little to improve the existing water level management plan, both in terms of environmental protection and hydropower generation. Further, lessons learned from the LOSL Study will be used for the Upper Great Lakes Study to examine water levels on the St. Claire River and Lakes Ontario and Huron. Therefore, today, along with the Gentlewoman from Western New York, Mrs. Slaughter, a co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force and trained biologist, I am introducing a resolution which calls on the Secretary of State to not approve Plan 2007. It further asks that the Secretary ensure that any plan which is adopted provide adequate environmental protection, maximize hydropower generation, and fully considers the views of the public and affected state governments. For the record, I am including letters of support for this resolution from Alcoa-Massena Operations; Alliance for the Great Lakes; American Rivers; Audubon; Audubon New York; Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper; Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Ducks Unlimited--Great Lakes Region; Environmental Advocates of New York; Freshwater Future; Georgian Baykeeper for Georgian Bay Association and Foundation; Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council; Great Lakes United; International Association for Great Lakes Research; International Water Level Coalition; Izaak Walton League--New York Division; Michigan United Conservation Clubs; Midwest Environmental Advocates; National Wildlife Federation--Great Lakes; Save the River/Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper; The Nature Conservancy--New York; The New York State Conservation Council; Thousand Islands Land Trust; and Wisconsin Council of Trout Unlimited. I urge my colleagues to join with Mrs. Slaughter and me as cosponsors of this resolution. I will continue to work with my colleagues and my constituents by using every legislative tool at my disposal to ensure that the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario continue to be vibrant natural resources for future generations. Alcoa Primary Metals/ Global Hard Alloy Extrusions, Massena. NY, April 22, 2008. Congressman John M. McHugh, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McHugh: As a major North Country employer dependent upon hydropower for our production operations, we have a strong interest in the future of the St. Lawrence River and have closely followed the debate over various water level regulation plans. We concur with you that it is imperative a plan be adopted by the International Joint Commission that takes into account environmental considerations and the concerns of the public, while at the same time maximizing hydropower production. As you recognize, all three of these issues--environmental considerations, public concerns regarding recreational uses and hydropower--are closely linked to the economy of this region. A St. Lawrence River water level management plan should clearly address these concerns in consideration of the economic future of the North Country. We fully support your resolution regarding a water levels management plan that takes these three issues into account. Sincerely, Wesley Oberholzer, Primary Location Manager, Alcoa Massena Operations.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 204. At this time, I wish to note that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated for:

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Thanks very much, Jay. As he indicated, my role this morning is to present our report on the Congress to Campus Program which as many of you know is now run exclusively by our Association in cooperation with the Stennis Center. David Skaggs, who did such a great job for us for some years, is now the Secretary of Education in Colorado. But the transition from his organization, the Council on Excellence in Government, has been very smooth and successful. As most of you know, the Congress to Campus Program is the Association's flagship program for our members. It sends bipartisan teams of former Members to colleges, universities and high schools across the country to educate the next generation of leaders on the importance of civic engagement. The participating students benefit from the interaction with our Association members whose knowledge and experience, as we know, are a unique resource. But at the same time our members benefit, as Jay has said, through our continued involvement in public service and the ability to engage these young people on issues of importance to them. During each visit, our bipartisan team conducts classes, meets individually with students and faculty, speaks to campus media, participates in both campus and community forums, and meets with local citizens. Institutions are encouraged to market our visits to the entire campus community, not just to those students who are majoring in political science, history or government. Over the course of 2\1/2\ days, hundreds of students are exposed to the former Members' message regarding the significance of public service. There is one more visit scheduled for this academic year, after which we begin recruiting schools for next year. The program has made both domestic and international visits this academic year, including a visit to campuses in the United Kingdom and Canada and, for the first time, two separate visits to campuses in Mexico. By the end of next week, the program will have made 26 campus visits in this academic year. More than 30 members of our Association have made visits this academic year, and I want to take the opportunity to thank all of you who have participated in the program and certainly encourage those of you who have not had the opportunity as yet to do so, it's a great experience for us. I also want to extend our thanks to the campuses, the faculty and staff members and students who worked so diligently on each of these visits. Without their hard work, these visits would not have been possible. We rely heavily on the universities to take the lead in coordinating logistics relating to each visit and appreciate the time they devote to ensuring their students will receive the benefits of the program. We have also continued, as I mentioned at the beginning, our relationship with the Stennis Center for Public Service in the administration of the program. Association and Stennis Center staff work very closely together on a day-by-day basis to make the program such a great success. We appreciate both the staff support and the steady financial contribution we get from the Stennis Center each area. We look forward to working with them in the years ahead as well. I am also pleased to announce that in the next academic year for the first time we will be receiving a financial contribution and some support from the Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation. The Foundation's generous grant will enable our Association to reach out to more students and more schools, many of whom have not participated in the past. And so on behalf of our members, I want to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for recognizing the importance of our reaching out to the next generation of leaders. We have also continued working with the People to People Ambassador Program that brings young people to our Nation's capital for a week of events centered on the concepts of character and leadership. These students are far younger than those who participate in the Congress to Campus activities, but they have already demonstrated a commitment to the ideals that the Congress to Campus Program seeks to promote. The Association's involvement in this program allows our members living in the Washington area to speak to these younger students on the importance of public service and to answer any questions they might have. A number of our members, as you know, are working full time still and the People to People engagements allow them to continue their public service in this particular way. The events are typically held in the early morning at suburban locations. Again, I want to thank all of our colleagues who have participated in this program. I want to mention in particular our colleague Orval Hansen of Idaho. I don't know if Orval is here this morning. If not, he deserves recognition, because he has made it to nine of these visits early in the morning to meet with these younger students, seven of those visits in the last month alone. That is enormous dedication, and we are grateful to him in particular. I want to conclude by again expressing appreciation to all of those who have made the Congress to Campus Program such a great success and by encouraging all of my friends here to participate. As you know, a democracy can prosper only if its citizens are engaged, and as former legislators we have a particular responsibility, I think, to encourage others to do so, particularly our young people. Thank you very much.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 201, I missed the vote due to a meeting in my office with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the State University of New York at Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh State) Lady Cardinals upon winning the 2008 NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey National Championship, their second consecutive national championship. I am proud to represent the Lady Cardinals and the community of Plattsburgh. On March 22, 2008, Plattsburgh State won the Division III National Championship when it defeated the Manhattanville College Lady Valiants by a score of 3 to 2 at the Stafford Ice Arena in Plattsburgh, NY. The Lady Cardinals seized the lead at 9:59 of the first period when Laurie Bowler scored the first goal of the game. After the Valiants evened the score just over a minute later, Stephanie Moberg and Captain Danielle Blanchard combined on a beautiful goal, finished by Blanchard, to put the Lady Cards back in the lead at 13:50. Forty-nine seconds later, Amber Ellis scored the Cardinals third and the eventual game-winning goal, which was assisted by Kate Fairfield and Brittany Meade. Goaltender Danielle Beattie turned away 22 shots to win her 21st game of the season. Blanchard, Beattie, Captain Julie Devereux, Moberg, and Sharis Smith were all named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team; Blanchard and Devereux were also named to the AHCA All-American First Team. Blanchard, a three-time All-American who scored a career-high 28 goals as part of a 48-point season, also earned the 2008 Laura Hurd Award, which is given to the Nation's top player. The Lady Cardinals were coached by head coach Kevin Houle, who won the Division III Women's Ice Hockey Coach of the Year for the third straight year and currently has the best career record (121-19-7; 847 winning percentage) among all active coaches in NCAA hockey. Other team members included assistant coaches Chad Kemp and Erin O'Brien and players Kristen Bond, Ainsley Brien, Assistant Captain Lindsay Brown, Kara Buehler, Shay Bywater, Elise Campbell, Megan DiJulio, Helen Giroux, Amanda Hoy, Tara Khan, Mandy Mackrell, Kayla McDougall, Steph Moon, Claire O'Connor, and Sarah Samson. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to have the opportunity to congratulate the Plattsburgh State Lady Cardinals ice hockey team. Accordingly, I now ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the entire Lady Cardinals hockey team for their remarkable accomplishments this season.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Hammond Central School District's Lady Red Devils of Hammond, New York, upon winning the 2008 New York State Girls Basketball Class D Championship. It is an honor to represent the Lady Red Devils, who are the first North Country team to win back-to-back championships. On March 16, 2008, the Hammond Central Lady Red Devils won their second New York State Girls Basketball Class D Championship when they defeated the John A. Coleman Catholic High School Stateswomen by a score of 47 to 38. In that game, the Lady Red Devils charged to a 10-1 first-quarter advantage and played tough defense as they worked to defend their State title. Of note, Aubrie Dunn pulled down 10 rebounds, Nicole Davidson had 9 rebounds and 12 points, and tournament MVP Brittany Kenyon scored 17 points. The Hammond Central Lady Red Devils completed the 2008 season with a record of 24 and 4. They were coached by Athletic Director Shawn Dack and assistant coaches Larry Hollister, Superintendent Doug McQueer, and Chet Truskowski. Other team members were scorekeepers Todd Dack and Cathy Tulley and players Whitney Atkins, Cassie Cunningham, Jessie Disotell, Brooke Hollister, Katlyn Hunt, Malynda Jenne, Jackie Knight, Jessica Martin, Jessica Measheaw, Sara Measheaw, and Sarah Sheridan. Madam Speaker, it takes a tremendous amount of dedication, discipline, hard work, and teamwork to win a State championship, let alone to win consecutive State championships. I am very proud of the Hammond Central Lady Red Devils and ask my colleagues to join with me in extending our congratulations to this team, their families, and the community.