Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and if I can comment on a few things she said. I am embarrassed when I have town meetings, and I have had a town meeting almost every weekend, and my district is about a half hour from Newark airport. I talk about aviation security, and they do not want to laugh, but some literally laugh when I talk about what we are going to do. They go to the airport and they witness the same problems that existed before September 11. They cannot imagine how the tragedy of September 11 does not spur us to action.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman points out so well that if this Senate bill was taken up here tomorrow, if it passed, if the Republican leadership did not do whatever they could to try to prevent it from passing, it would immediately be signed by the President. There is no question about it. Our colleagues this evening were talking about the conference.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it is over 40 days since the tragic events on September 11, and yet this Republican leadership in the House is still blocking legislation dealing with aviation security. 40 days later, it is unbelievable. When I go home and have my town meetings and I have to admit that to my constituents, it makes them lose faith in the system. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight with some of my Democratic colleagues because of my concern, and all of our concern, that the Republican leadership was determined today to ram through what they call an economic stimulus package, which in my opinion is not an economic stimulus package at all but an effort to try to provide tax breaks for corporations, special interests, and wealthy Americans who donate to the Republican campaigns. I feel very strongly, and this is not just based on the fact that I am a Democrat, but what I hear when I go back and what is common sense, I feel very strongly that the main priority that should be addressed here in the House of Representatives and which is not being addressed is the issue of homeland security, particularly when it comes to aviation security and our airports. If my colleagues noticed today, as much as the Republicans were determined to push through this so-called economic stimulus package, which does not accomplish anything and will never pass, by the way, it passed, I think the vote was maybe 216 or 215 to 213, which shows there was tremendous opposition to this package. And it will never pass in the Senate; yet the Republican leadership refuses to take up a very good Senate bill that passed in the other body 100 to zero, unanimously, that deals directly with the issue of security at our airports and addresses the concerns that so many of my constituents bring up to me when I go home. Let me just say I had a town meeting Sunday night in South River, which is one of the towns that I represent in the State of New Jersey, and no one mentioned the issue of an economic stimulus package. Now, that is not to say that there is not a problem with the economy and we do not need to address that; but all my constituents at that meeting and at most of the other forums I have had at home want to talk about their security concerns, and a big part of that is airports. They come to the town meeting and they say, Congressman Pallone, what is going on at the airports? Some of them actually have been to an airport, to Newark Airport, which is not very far from my district, and talk about the inconsistency in the security precautions that are there, the fact that baggage is not looked at. They go into the airport, they check their baggage and most of that baggage is not searched or looked at electronically in an effective way. They continue to be concerned about the fact that we are not federalizing the security workforce. If we look at the Senate bill, what it does is addresses all these things. It addresses the issue of checking baggage. It says we will have a federalized workforce so that we know that people are qualified and being paid well and are trained properly to use the screening devices at the airport. I have people coming to my town meetings who bring devices, one person had a cigarette lighter that disguised a pocketknife underneath, that passed through the screening device. Another one had a little device that looked like a computer that had a knife in it that passed through the screening device. We need to address these issues, and the Republican leadership is not addressing it. Instead, they bring up tax breaks for their wealthy friends and for corporate interests. This is not what the American people are asking us for; and for the life of me I do not know why we are wasting our time here addressing or trying to deal with this legislation that does nothing and goes nowhere when we have a very good bill that could be taken up from the other body, passed, and which deals effectively with the aviation security issue. I have a number of my colleagues here tonight that want to talk about this, and I would like to yield now to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who has dealt with these issues of aviation security for a long time; and I would like to now yield to him.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey because I know that he speaks the truth. Our point this evening is that there already is legislation that passed the other body that very effectively deals with the aviation security issue. Rather than bring that up and pass it and send it on to the President, we have the Republican leadership which controls what goes on in the House of Representatives, bringing up an economic stimulus package, and Democrats have an economic stimulus package, too, and some of my colleagues here are going to discuss that, but the Republican leadership knew that this bill would go nowhere. They knew that this bill was overwhelmingly opposed by the Democrats and some of the Republicans and that the other body would never consider it, and they are wasting our time instead of bringing up a very important aviation security bill. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield again to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. It expired on April 1, 1999.

Mr. PALLONE. It says you are a safe driver too.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman again. I think he expresses very well the problem that we face here with the Republican leadership and why this bill has not come up. I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York. I appreciate the fact that we are ending this Special Order as he said, on what is practical. I think that is all we are really saying as Democrats, is that we want practical solutions that are going to pass, be signed by the President, and help the American people. That is why the airline security package that passed the other body, the Senate, should come up here. The Republican leadership should allow us to bring it up because we know it will pass, the President will sign it, and it will become law. The same is true for an economic package. Let us put together a package that helps the little guy, that helps the displaced worker, that provides some tax relief, and that really stimulates the economy that we can all get together with on a bipartisan basis and pass so that it means something to help the economy. That is all we are asking for, practical solutions. As Democrats, we are going to be here every night until these practical solutions are brought up and the Republican leadership essentially faces reality.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina. I think he basically laid out the problem we face here with the Republican leadership. I just want to say before I yield to my other colleague from North Carolina that I am not suggesting here that we do not need an economic stimulus package. What I am suggesting is that the Republican leadership knew that the package that they were bringing to the floor was not bipartisan, essentially could not get the support of any, or almost any Democrats and barely passed and the votes tonight proved it. It only passed by about four or five votes. They know it is not going to pass the other body, the Senate, and so they are just wasting time that could be spent bringing up the aviation security bill or alternatively coming up with a bipartisan economic stimulus package that we could support and that the other body would pass and that the President could support. So either way, we are wasting our time here today. Either bring up a good economic stimulus package or bring up the airline security bill. They have chosen to do neither, wasting our time and making it even more difficult, I think, to get anything accomplished at a time when Americans want us to address these really serious problems. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my other colleague from North Carolina, who is on the economic task force and has been basically addressing these economic issues and I know would easily be able to help put together a bipartisan package that would actually stimulate the economy and help displaced workers and the people who are unemployed because of what happened on September 11 and who do not have health insurance and other benefits. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina, and especially I want to make mention of that last editorial the gentleman read, because it is true. Essentially when you are back at home, and you know it, every one of us wants us to work together; and we are very proud of the fact that in the last month or so that Democrats and Republicans worked together and worked with the President. But now we see that all torn up today. You do not bring a stimulus package to the floor knowing full well that it is idealogically based, with the Republican leadership feeling that tax cuts to the big corporations and to the wealthy are somehow going to stimulate the economy, knowing full well the Democrats will not vote for it. So I would go beyond that editorial and say not only has the Republican leadership broken the promise of bipartisanship that came out after September 11, but they are not doing anything that will accomplish anything. The one thing that I get, in addition to my constituents wanting us to work in a bipartisan fashion, is wanting us to work to accomplish something. It is clear that if we do not bring up this aviation security bill that passed the other body, or if we try to ram through an economic stimulus package that will not pass the other body, that we are just playing games, the Republican leadership is playing games, and essentially we are wasting time. That is the thing I think that is also very tragic. We have real needs here, security needs and economic needs, to get the economy going again. All the Republican leadership is doing is playing games and wasting time. I think that the American public is going to be increasingly outraged by those kinds of tactics. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague. I have to say, when I have the town meetings, and I have had several since September 11, and I think the gentleman knows in my district we had quite a few victims of September 11 in the two counties I represent, about 150 people who died in the attack on the World Trade Center, and I am ashamed. I have to say, I have the town meetings, and people come there and talk about having visited the airport, most of the time Newark Airport, only about half an hour away, and talking about their experiences and how they have been able to bring devices through the screeners or by avoiding the screeners, and they ask questions about the baggage and why is the baggage not being screened. All I can say is that we have a bill and the Republican leadership has refused to bring it up. Frankly, I do not like to be that partisan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to urge this Congress to maintain section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in its current form and oppose efforts to repeal this important provision of law. Section 907 places reasonable conditions of U.S. assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until Azerbaijan has shown that it has taken demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the administration is using the tragedies of September 11 and our Nation's war against terrorism as a way to convince Members of Congress of the need to waive these sanctions. Yesterday, members of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations in both the House and the Senate received a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell requesting ``assistance in passing legislation that would provide a national security interest waiver from the restrictions of section 907.'' Secretary Powell continued by stating, ``Removal of these restrictions will allow the United States to provide necessary military assistance that will enable Azerbaijan to counter terrorist organizations and elements operating within its borders. This type of assistance is a critical element of the United States fight against global terrorism.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, this letter is unfortunate; and although I am not surprised, because the State Department has always opposed section 907, but it is particularly troubling to think that Secretary Powell would want to provide military assistance to Azerbaijan, a nation which has a history of aggression and blockades against Armenia and which continues to this day to make threats of renewed aggression against Nagorno Karabagh under the cover of the international war on terrorism. Let me give some recent examples of these threats. Azerbaijani Defense Minister, Colonel General Abiev, was cited recently by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Caucasus Report as an advocate of renewed aggression against Nagorno Karabagh. Radio Free Europe has also reported that Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Quliev has said that if Azerbaijan decides to liberate Karabagh from terrorists, then the international community would have no right to condemn that move as aggression. Azerbaijani Parliamentarian IgbalAgazadeh said that the time has come to start hostilities on the liberation of Azeri territories occupied by Armenia, a direct reference to a new war against Nagorno Karabagh. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan does not share our understanding of this war on terrorism. The senior Azerbaijani leaders are telling us very plainly that they intend to use all of the means at their disposal, including apparently any and all military aid that we provide them in their antiterrorist war against the Armenian people. Taking any steps to weaken, waive, or repeal Section 907 will give Azerbaijan the green light and the means to renew its aggression against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. In his letter, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Powell says Section 907 must be repealed so the Azerbaijani government can fight terrorist organizations in its own country. What the Secretary does not say is that there are credible reports that the Azerbaijani government invited bin Laden and his network into its country. Given this information, the United States Government should carefully review its relationship with Azerbaijan and not reward it with repeal of Section 907. At a minimum, I believe U.S. interests are best served by insisting Azerbaijan arrest and turn over those involved in the al- Qaeda cells operating there with the government's approval since the early to mid-1990s. These cells threaten all of us in the United States, but Armenia in particular is on the front line of this battle. To date Azerbaijan has done nothing to warrant repeal of Section 907, including continuing its war rhetoric, rejecting U.S.-European calls for cooperation with Armenia, rejecting specific proposals by Armenia for economic and regional cooperation, and backing away from the commitments made by Azerbaijani President Geidar Aliyev during peace negotiations this year in Paris and in Key West earlier in year. Given the ongoing sensitive peace negotiations, efforts to weaken or repeal Section 907 only serve to legitimize Azerbaijan's immoral blockade and would make its position at the negotiating table even more intransigent. Moreover, repeal of Section 907 is no way to reward Armenia's solidarity with America's campaign against international terrorism. Armenia's early response to the World Trade Center attack was to first assist American staff at our U.S. Embassy in Armenia's capital to ensure the Embassy's security. Armenia's President, speaking on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty of the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States, called for joint action against international terrorism. Armenia currently holds the rotating presidency in this six-member defense grouping. Armenia has also offered and the U.S. has already used Armenia's airspace. In addition, Armenia has offered intelligence-sharing and other unspecified offers of support. There is no reason to repeal Section 907, and it would be a big mistake at this time, Mr. Speaker. Now more than ever the Congress has to uphold the fundamental and enduring U.S. principles of justice, democracy, and human rights.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for yielding me this time. I come to the House floor today to rise in opposition to S. 1465, as we know, a bill that waives certain sanctions against Pakistan. Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Act for fiscal year 2001 was passed by Congress to prohibit the export of U.S. weapons and military assistance to countries whose duly-elected head of government is deposed. In 1999, General Perez Musharraf overthrew the civilian-elected government of Pakistan in a military coup and since then has governed Pakistan under military rule. As a result, section 508 sanctions have been in place and U.S. policy has maintained that no military assistance would be provided to Pakistan. Under the current circumstances due to the attacks of September 11, I do feel that it is appropriate to provide economic assistance to Pakistan because of General Musharraf's willingness to support the U.S. in seizing Osama bin Laden and eliminating the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Pakistan is not only a country suffering from severe poverty in some regions, but it is also a fragile society. Pakistan's pleas to the U.S. for economic help are understandable, and any humanitarian, education, economic, and social assistance is worthy of being granted on an expedited basis. However, Madam Speaker, I stand strong in my argument against military aid to Pakistan, even under the current circumstances. Since the first day of U.S. military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it has become clear that Pakistan's armed forces are not participating in the antiterrorism effort in Afghanistan. If Pakistan's forces are not being used directly against the Taliban and terrorist groups, there is no justification for providing military aid. South Asia is today one of the most politically volatile areas in the world. Pakistan is a nuclear power, but has been unstable and, like I said earlier, very fragile. Until sound democracy is established in Pakistan, it is unclear what purpose military artillery and weapons will be used for. My fear is that if we provide weapons to Pakistan or lead to that possibility, they may inadvertently fall into the wrong hands and be used in ways contrary to U.S. interests. And Pakistan has Iran to the west of its borders and India to the east. Sri Lanka and several other countries contribute to the volatile makeup of the region. Historically, U.S. arms exports to Pakistan have been used against India, primarily through cross-border military action in Kashmir. We saw a terrifying example of this on October 1 when a suicide car bomb exploded in front of the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly while it was in session. This terrorist attack left at least 40 dead and many more injured. Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistani-based group, is the terrorist group that came forward and claimed responsibility for this horrific act. This group is now on the Treasury Department's list of terrorist groups whose assets will be frozen by the U.S., but this example of cold-blooded murder by a Pakistani-based group should be evidence enough that weapons can and will fall into the hands of terrorist networks and potentially be used against India or other U.S. allies. The Pakistan government is currently not only supportive of the Taliban but, in fact, is one of the proponents that created the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Due to the deep ties between Pakistan and the Taliban, and the deep ties between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, I feel that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to uphold its current policy of restricting military assistance at this time. Given Pakistan's instability, nuclear proliferation capabilities, and current military rule, I do not see a reasonable argument for compromising our democratic values by waiving section 508. Finally, for my colleagues that feel that we should grant Pakistani aid requested, including military aid, I would note that under section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. may provide weapons and military assistance when U.S. national security interests are at stake. Given that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have not only savagely attacked us, but continue to pose a threat to the U.S., the President could provide U.S. military assistance to Pakistan under section 614. Unless the President certifies that that assistance provided under 614 is insufficient, there is no reason for Congress to waive section 508. If and when Pakistan takes steps towards establishing a democracy with a civilian-elected government, perhaps section 508 would be irrelevant. However, General Musharraf has shown no steps towards returning Pakistan to democratic rule and, in fact, has moved in the opposite direction for at least the past several months. On June 20 he declared himself President of Pakistan, which is a clear indication of his desire to maintain a dictatorial stronghold. Musharraf's past actions include dissolving Pakistan's National Assembly and four provincial assemblies. He has claimed that he will hold fair national elections by 2002; however, this has only been lip service so far. As a self-proclaimed President, Musharraf may be seen with more credibility in the eyes of the international community at large, but the fact remains that the people of his Nation never elected him. I believe that repealing section 508 clearly sends the wrong message, given the General's actions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the horrific events of September 11 underscore the renewed importance for democracies of the world to stand together in the fight against terrorism. The United Nations serves as a vital forum in the effort to eradicate terrorism once and for all. Unfortunately, one of the most vibrant democracies in the world that is willing and economically capable of aiding with the efforts against terrorism has consistently been denied re-admission to the U.N. Taiwan is a democracy with a strong economy, commitment to human rights and support for fundamental freedoms. Its GNP and population are larger than three-quarters of the existing member countries of the U.N. On behalf of its 23 million people, Taiwan should be allowed membership in the United Nations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress, with broad bipartisan support, have repeatedly endorsed Taiwan's desire for participation in the United Nations and in other international organizations including the World Health Organization, the Asian Development Bank, admission to the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation Group and the World Trade Organization. The Taiwan Policy Review of 1994 mandated overwhelmingly by Congress expressed strong support for a more active policy in support of Taiwan's participation in international organizations. On May 24, 2000, the House passed H.R. 444 advocating Taiwan's full membership into the WTO. Taiwan has built one of the most consistently solid economies in the world and its people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Asia. It ranks as the seventh largest trading partner to the United States. Using its economic success, Taiwan has served as a model for other nations by assisting developing economies and by contributing to international organizations. Having elected Chen Shui-bian--the first member of the opposition to assume the Presidency last year, Taiwan boasts a strong, participatory, multi-party democracy holding free elections at all levels. President Chen has been a champion of civil liberties, the rule of law and human rights. He has committed Taiwan to upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration and Action Program of the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights. Taiwan has made major strides in upholding and maintaining human rights. Examples of East and West Germany admitted to the UN in 1973 and later unified and North and South Korea admitted in 1991 show that Taiwan could be given membership to the U.N. without prejudice to the final resolution of the differences between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Taiwan's 23 million citizens deserve meaningful participation in the United Nations and the benefits that would accrue to world peace and stability if Taiwan were formally brought into the community of nations.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues a friend and constituent of the Sixth District of New Jersey celebrating twenty years of pastoral service to the Baptist church. Born the youngest son of the late Johnnie and Flora Brown, Porter Brown entered this world on December 6, 1947. He grew up in Atlantic City and became heavily active in the church early on. As a child he was involved in the Junior Ushers, Church School, Youth Choir, and Baptist Training. He graduated from Atlantic City High School in 1965 and enrolled in Lincoln University in September 1966 to study literature. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Literature in English in May 1970. He took on a variety of educational teaching offers after college from teaching at River Middle School in Red Bank to becoming the program director of the Red Bank Community Center. In 1978, Mr. Brown transferred and began teaching at Asbury Park High School, where he taught for twenty years before retiring in June of 2000. In 1973, Mr. Brown joined the Faith Baptist Tabernacle. During this time, he served as the chairman of the Shore Community Day Care Center Building Committee and also as a church school teacher. He was ordained as an assistant to the pastor in January 1980 and preached at churches throughout New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania, and continued to teach bible studies through the Monmouth Bible Institute. In September 1981, Mr. Brown received the great honor of becoming the 4th Pastor of the Faith Baptist Tabernacle church. Pastor Brown has served the people of his community and has continued to see his church grow larger and larger with each passing year during his tenure. He is being honored on this day for his loyalty to his church, community, the educational system and the family. He has been blessed with a wife, Elder, two sons, two daughters, and seven grandchildren. On this day we celebrate the life and journey of a man that has given so much back to what his community, church, and life has given him.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend some time this evening talking about the tragedy at the World Trade Center, the terrorist attack. I do intend to get a little personal with regard to my district, which happens to be very close to New York City. Many of the people who worked in the World Trade Center and who died in the World Trade Center were actually my constituents. I also would like to talk a little bit this evening about some of the things that we are doing in Congress in response to the terrorist attack, some of the things that we have already done legislatively, and where I think we may go or should go over the next few weeks or the next few months in terms of what we do in Congress to respond to that attack. I may or may not be joined by other colleagues this evening so I may not use all the time; but, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say on a personal note, I visited the World Trade Center with President Bush the Friday after September 11, and it was a very devastating scene at the site, at ground zero. I used to work in New York City in a building known as the Equitable Building. I commuted back and forth to New Jersey, to my district, when I was younger. The Equitable Building is basically a block away from the World Trade Center. If you walk out, you used to be able to see the World Trade Center. Of course, I went to the World Trade Center many times in the course of my work when I worked in downtown Manhattan, so it really was a shock to go to ground zero in Manhattan the Friday after the terrorist attack and to see the devastation. But I have to say that as upset as I was that day in seeing the devastation and the piles of rubble, I was uplifted by so many volunteers that came from my own State and my own district and from all over the country, really, to try to help out, both initially, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and then, of course, in the days and weeks now that follow. They were people who were involved in the rescue operations and in clearing the place. It was really an uplifting experience seeing all those people out there working together. I think when I was standing there on that Friday and the President came by, there were three firemen from Hollywood, Florida, who wanted a chance to shake the President's hand. Of course, I kind of hustled them up so they could shake the President's hand. I really did not have any idea until I got there that day that there were police and fire and emergency rescue workers that were coming from as far away as Florida. There were probably many from even further away, from other parts of the country, or even from other parts of the world, for all I know. It was really, as I said, an uplifting experience to be able to witness all of that in the face of this tragedy. I wanted to say if I could, Mr. Speaker, that I want my constituents and residents in New Jersey to know how much the people of New York, the leaders in New York, appreciated all the things that New Jersey volunteers did. My district is actually across the water or across what we call the Raritan Bay. One can actually take a ferry from the World Trade Center area and in the course of maybe half an hour, 40 minutes, reach my district on the other side of Sandy Hook and Raritan Bay. What we found in the aftermath of the tragedy is that many of the volunteers from my district were helping ferry people back and forth, as well as supplies back and forth to Manhattan on the ferries that traveled back and forth. Mr. Speaker, we lost probably, in the two counties that I represent, Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, about 200 or so people in the World Trade Center. Needless to say, at this point most of the people have had memorial services and their relatives have reconciled themselves to the fact that their loved ones are not going to return. I have attended many vigils in the district. We also had two forums in the district in the week after September 11. One of them was in Middlesex County and the other was in Monmouth County. The one in Monmouth County, my home county, where there were the larger percentage of the victims, was actually held in Middletown. Middletown is a suburban community where some of the ferries operate. Middletown lost over 30 people, and probably had more victims of the tragedy than any other municipality, other than New York City itself. There was an article, Mr. Speaker, in the Washington Post on September 24 that talked about Middletown and the tragedy and how it impacted the people in Middletown. I do not want to read the whole article because it is very lengthy, but I will include it in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I will quote a few things from the article. It is rather sad. I know as time goes on we do not want to dwell on the sorrow, but I do think that because Middletown lost so many people, that I would like to read some sections of the article, because I think it says so much about how people suffered and how they responded. A lot of the thoughts that were in this article in the Washington Post were expressed at the forum that I had in Middletown within a week or so after the World Trade Center tragedies. Some of it was actually uplifting. When we had the forum at the VFW in Middletown, some of the women that were part of the Ladies Auxiliary at the Veterans of Foreign Wars there, they helped a lot with the forum; and one of them actually wrote a national prayer which I would like to read. If I could just take a minute to read some of the accounts in the Washington Post, it starts off, ``New Jersey Town Becomes Community of Sorrow. Commuter Haven Took Heavy Hit.'' It is written by Dale Russikoff from the Washington Post, Monday, September 24. It says, ``Middletown, New Jersey. It was the water and the great city just 10 miles across it that drew them here. By train or bus, New York is little more than an hour away, but by far the most romantic commute, an oxymoron in most other towns, is by water. At dawn, people who leave split levels and colonials and ranch homes by the thousands board ferries at Sandy Hook Point, and 45 minutes later look up from laptops and newspapers to see the sun rising behind the majestic Manhattan skyline and the World Trade Center towers, where much of Middletown worked. ``Wall Street money built mansions in places such as Greenwich, Connecticut, and Large Mountain, New York, but in Middletown, New Jersey, as the name implies, they created a suburban ideal for the State's up-and-comers, safe neighborhoods, good schools, strong churches, open spaces, roomy houses with mortgages they didn't choke on. ``So when the Twin Towers fell on September 11, much of Middletown fell with them. The official toll stands at 36, and authorities fear it will reach 50, among the highest, if not the highest, of any town outside New York City. But the aggregate number does not begin to convey the losses.'' Mr. Speaker, it goes on to talk about the grieving residents, my grieving residents. It talks on a little bit about the experiences after the tragedy. It says that more than half of the people who we lost in Middletown ``. . . worked for Cantor Fitzgerald,'' and I am quoting again from the Washington Post, the fabulously successful bond brokerage at the top of the World Trade Center Tower 1 that lost 700 employees. ``For a generation, now, Middletown has been a beacon for the young traders of Cantor Fitz. That was the nickname.'' I understand that most of the people that were lost in Cantor Fitzgerald were on the 105th floor, so basically they had no chance to escape. It was where the terrorist plane actually hit, so they did not really have the opportunity to escape. The last thing I wanted to read from this Washington Post article, it was when we had the forum in Middletown the week after the World Trade Center tragedy. As I said, it was at the VFW. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues to understand that Middletown is not only a commuter town, but it also has a military base. Earle Naval Weapons Depot is located there and there are several thousand people that work at the Navy weapons depot. There is a lot of loyalty and pride in Middletown over the fact that Earle is based there and that there is a long tradition of the sailors being there and of people working at the base. Middletown is also not very far from Fort Monmouth in Monmouth County, which is an Army base that has about 12,000 employees and is the communications and electronics command for the Army. So we have in Middletown and in Monmouth County and in my entire district, a strong affinity with the military. It was interesting because when I was at the VFW that night in Middletown, even with so many people having died from that town, and even with the military bases being there and people already getting prepared at the base for a potential war against terrorism, many of the people that showed up, and many of them had fought in World War II and Korea and Vietnam, stressed the fact that they wanted us only to go after the terrorists. They did not want bombing and ground troops to go into Afghanistan or some other places unless it was actually going to mean that we were going to get the terrorists and the people responsible, or the people that harbored. They did not just want us to get involved in an indiscriminate war that might impact innocent people. I was not surprised by that, but I think it needs to be stressed because sometimes in Congress we worry about the nature of our response. This was the last section from the Washington Post that is sort of on point in this article. It says, ``Not all the people of Middletown are comforted by talk of war. Many have children in the military who may soon be in harm's way and several who lost family members in the September 11 attack are horrified to hear Americans calling for people of other countries to die en masse to avenge their loved ones.'' Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read this National prayer that I said was composed by the chaplain, Emma Elberfeld. This was a prayer that was basically handed out that evening at the VFW and it says, ``Lord, we come to you on bended knee, head bowed and our hearts filled to overflowing with so much grief for the many people who have been injured and killed in our National crisis. We ask you, Lord, to give courage and strength to those who so bravely go to their aid. Although their hearts are heavy and filled with sorrow, we ask you, Lord, to give them the endurance needed to help them through this difficult task. ``Please give us the strength, Lord, to get through each difficult and devastating day that faces each of us in our country. Protect and guide our military that are now being called to duty. ``We ask, Lord, please guide our leaders of this great country in their hour of decision. The burden that has been placed on shoulders during this crisis has been overwhelming. We humbly ask that with Your infinite wisdom, You guide them gently to the right decisions. ``Lastly, Lord, we ask that You allow us all to come together as a Nation. Help us stand tall and united so that we might help each other in our hour of need. Amen.'' This is by Emma Elberfeld, chaplain, and Peg Centrella, Americanism chairlady. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to, if I could, spend a little time, in part, this is for my constituents, talking about some of the responses that we have had here in Congress, how we have dealt with the situation and where I think we should go from here. I should mention that next Monday I have scheduled in my district a forum on homeland security, because there has been a lot of concern about what Congress will do to secure things at home. Health concerns, for example, the threat of chemical or biological warfare. Also, I have a forum scheduled the following Sunday, I believe October 14, where we are going to talk and stress tolerance because I should explain that my district is very diverse ethnically. I had a meeting one night in one of the towns that I represent called North Brunswick, which is near New Brunswick where Rutgers University is headquartered. I could count people from 30 different countries of the 40 or so people that came to the forum. They were from such exotic place as Uzbekistan, for example. We have a very high percentage in my district of Asian Americans, of Americans from the Mideast, large Indian populations, South Asian population, Pakistani population, Sri Lanka, and a large Muslim population as well. There has been a great deal of concern about the fact that we need to be tolerant. That we do not want people who happen to look Arab or Pakistani or from Central Asia that they be targeted and somehow they be seen as at fault for the attack on September 11. I will talk a little bit more about that this evening, although I do not intend to go on too much longer. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that we passed in the immediate aftermath of the World Trade Center tragedy, we passed a supplemental appropriations bill, of which I think was $40 billion of which half, about $20 billion, has to go to help the victims and the rescue operations that resulted from the World Trade Center tragedy and the Pentagon attack. I want everyone to understand in my district and in New Jersey that a significant amount of that money will go not only to help victims, but also to help the towns and the fire departments and those that provided rescue operations, because the bill, as you can imagine, is rather extensive. We also, as you know, Mr. Speaker, within a few days after the World Trade Center attack, passed a resolution authorizing the President's use of force. I will say once again and reiterate, as I assume every one of my colleagues feels very strongly, that basically we were authorizing the President to use whatever force was necessary in order to go after these terrorists, to eliminate the terrorist cells and the network, and also to be used against those who harbor or protect or supply the terrorists. I am 100 percent supportive of that, that everything that needs to be done should be done to make sure that they are rooted out and they do not pose a threat again to the United States or to innocent victims here in the United States. As I mentioned, myself and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who also represents parts of Monmouth and Middlesex Counties, we both visited to the two military bases that we share, Earle Naval Weapons Depot as well as Fort Monmouth, and we saw the state of readiness that they are at. Earle is the only ammunition depot on the Eastern seaboard that has the capacity to take ammunition by rail, if you will, from the heartland of the United States, and then has direct access to the Atlantic Ocean so that that ammunition can then be transported to ships and naval vessels that would have to go to a theater of war in the Atlantic or over in the Persian Gulf. Fort Monmouth is the communications and electronics command for the Army. Anything that involves communications or electronics that is supportive of the war effort against terrorism essentially goes through Fort Monmouth. They do all the research and development under CECOM, Communications and Electronics Command, for the Army, but they are also involved in communications in the field for a soldier that is in place in a theater of war. So one can see how significant these bases are, and myself and Congressman Holt went to visit. We were very much pleased by what we saw in terms of the state of readiness and everybody being so organized to take part in this response to terrorism, and we will continue to do whatever we can to be supportive of those bases. Also, Mr. Speaker, the next week after the World Trade Center attack, we came back to Congress and we passed the airline bailout bill, as I call it, and that was very important for my home State of New Jersey, because although we do not have a major airport in my District, we are not very far from Newark Airport and Continental Airlines. Of course, it is a major depot for them and we do have many people that have been laid off and we have the airlines suffering. So that was an important bill. I did want to say that I think many of my colleagues have pointed out, and particularly last night, we had a special order led by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) where he talked about his displaced workers legislation. I, for one, and I know many of my Democratic colleagues were very concerned that that airline bailout bill did not provide any kind of benefits or help for workers who had been laid off, of which I have many in my District, and we will continue to agitate that the House leadership, the Republican leadership, needs to bring up a displaced workers bill so that those workers who have been laid off in the airline industry or in any industry that has suffered as a result of the World Trade Center tragedies, that those people who have been laid off would get extended health benefits, extended unemployment benefits and other benefits that are necessary for them to feed their families and to keep going and training to get another job if they cannot go back to their position in the airline industry or in the limousine industry. For example, I mentioned limousines, because when I had my forum in Middletown, when I approached the VFW that night after the World Trade Center tragedy to have the forum, I noticed a number of limousines that were parked outside. I said, well, what is this, what are the limousines doing here? Then I walked into the forum and realized that these were limousine operators and drivers who had been laid off or who were making 5 or 10 percent of the trips that they used to make because a lot of it was to the airports or to New York City, and they need help, too. So, even though we did the airline bailout, we need also to look at other industries that have been impacted, and we certainly need to help those displaced workers who have lost their jobs. The other thing that we need to do in the future, and I know the Democrats in particular have been talking about, the form of an economic stimulus package. Obviously, since I am so close to New York City and have a lot of people that work in New York in the securities industry in New York, in the Stock Exchange, we are very concerned about what is happening there and the economy in general, and we need to provide a package that will stimulate the economy and get us out of this slump that we have been in. Of course, I, and I know the Democrats have been stressing the need to provide a stimulus package that just does not help the corporations, or just does not help wealthy people, but also helps the average person so that this money gets back into the economy and is spent and helps stimulate the economy. I wanted to talk a little bit now, if I could, before I end about these two other forums that I do plan to have over the next week or so, the one next Monday on homeland security and the one the following Sunday, I believe, on the issue of tolerance. Within the Democratic Caucus, we have a Homeland Security Task Force that actually is chaired by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and they are in the process of putting together a principles and actions on the issue of homeland security. Some people have said to me when I use the term ``homeland security,'' what does that mean? What are you talking about? Basically, when I have had forums in my District, the issues that I put under the rubric of homeland security have come up quite a bit, and there has been a lot of discussion about it, issues such as what would happen in the event of a chemical or biological attack? Is our water supply secure? Are our nuclear plants, which we have some in New Jersey, secure? These are the kinds of things we need to respond to and deal with, obviously, over the next few weeks. In addition, there is the whole issue of security with regard to means of transportation other than airlines. I heard Senator Biden from the other body speaking on the Senate floor just a few hours ago about Amtrak and about trains. Obviously in New Jersey, we are in the middle of the northeast corridor for Amtrak, the Metroliner, other high speed trains. One train obviously carries a lot more passengers than an airline does, and yet until September 11, I do not think anybody thought much about the security of a train. In my District, and I am sure it is true all over the country, even to take a Metroliner or a high speed train, you basically walk on with your bags. Nobody checks your bags. If you have a Metroliner, usually they will check your ticket to see if you have a ticket, but there is not the consciousness that you need to worry about security. Well, we need to. We need to worry about security for all forms of transportation: buses, trains, and other kinds of mass transit. And the other issue that has come up at the forums which fits under this rubric of homeland security, and there are many, but at the forum that I had in Middlesex County, in Edison, New Jersey, a lot of people talked about emergency management concerns and communications. In other words, how we communicate in the event of a terrorist attack. Do we have the ability to provide information? Most people were watching CNN, but there needs to be an emergency system absent CNN to communicate with people. And there was talk about whether that needs to be done at a State level or at the county level. These are the kinds of things that come up under the general category of homeland security, and of course they need to be addressed. Hopefully, we will address them here in the Congress over the next few weeks and the next few months. The last thing I wanted to mention, and I just mentioned having this forum in another week or so on the issue of tolerance, this is very important in my district but I think all over the country because of the diversity of our citizens, and particularly in my district because we have so many citizens that either are Muslim or could look like the stereotype that we have of somebody who comes from the Middle East or South Asia. A lot of my constituents, whether they be Indian, Pakistani, or whatever their religion, have told me they have actually experienced in some cases threats, in some cases slurs, whatever, in the aftermath of the tragedy. We actually had one person, who was from Milltown, Mr. Hassan from Milltown, in my district, who had moved to Texas to set up a small grocery store a few months before September 11. His wife and his family were still in Milltown. He was actually murdered within a few days after the World Trade Center attack. Most of the information we have seems to indicate that it was a hate crime. Of course, they brought his body back to my district, to Milltown, and there was a service at the mosque in South Brunswick. I spoke to his widow on the phone. With all the tragedies that we had in my district and all the people that died at the World Trade Center, I think talking to Mrs. Hassan was the most difficult conversation I have had in the last few weeks, if not in the last few years, because she talked about his patriotism and why he came to the United States; because he wanted to live in a free country, and how he believed in America. He was a capitalist, obviously, in the sense he wanted to open up a small business and be successful. She expressed in such an eloquent way why it was important for us in this country to speak of tolerance and not tag Muslim Americans or Pakistani or Indian Americans as somehow involved in terrorist attacks. That is why I think it is important that we all continue to speak out on the issue of tolerance. I was very impressed with President Bush, and my colleagues know I do not always agree with President Bush on many things, but I was so impressed with the fact that every day, not only on the day of the tragedy, September 11, but on the Thursday after, when I met him at the White House, on the Friday when we went to the World Trade Center, and when he addressed a joint session of Congress the following week, on every one of those occasions and every occasion I have seen him talk about the tragedies of September 11 he would talk about Muslims and how Islam does not preach violence, and that Muslim Americans should not be tagged and should not be treated any differently because of this World Trade Center attack. We need to continue to do that. I have to say I was very impressed that in my district we had a number of vigils that I attended. At every one of the vigils that I have attended since September 11 there was a Muslim religious leader present to say a prayer and to offer condolences. And I think that the people organizing those vigils in my district were going out of their way to make sure that there was a Muslim cleric there saying a prayer, to make the point that Islam does not preach violence, and that the people who are of Muslim descent in the district and around the country should in no way be associated with this terrorist attack. We know, in fact, that many Muslims and people of Mid Eastern or South Asian origin died in the World Trade Center. There were Palestinians, there were Pakistanis, and there were many Indian Americans. And when I went to see the rescue operations, I saw many of those people, either physicians or rescue workers or people involved in voluntary efforts that were from those same groups as well. It is crucial that we continue to preach tolerance. Hopefully, we could even see some progress in some legislative initiatives, such as the hate crimes legislation that would increase penalties for hate crimes. Maybe we can also, in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, pass legislation that would prohibit racial profiling. These are the kinds of things in a positive way that could be done as a positive response to the World Trade Center attacks in order to preach tolerance and to put this Nation on record legislatively even stronger against any kind of racial or ethnic attacks. With that, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to end, if I could this evening, with a letter that was sent to me by one of my constituents from Long Branch, which is my hometown. This was at one of the meetings I held. This was a meeting I held with some Long Branch residents in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. This was sent to me and written by Colleen Rose, who lives at 311 Liberty Street in Long Branch, in my hometown, not far from my congressional office and not far from where I live. She really sums up well the way I feel and the way I think also most of my constituents feel. It is titled, ``To the Terrorists That This Concerns: ``It is obvious from your actions that you wanted me to feel the way you do. Well, I am an American. I have choices. I will not be controlled. ``Where you would have my country and those slain seen as victims, I choose to see them as patriots. Americans are not victims. ``Where your actions would have me feel fear, I choose to feel the courage, strength, and comfort of my countrymen around me. ``Where your actions would have me feel terror, I choose to feel pride in the way the people in the Pittsburgh plane crash fought back and downed the plane in the safest place possible, sparing as many lives as possible. And the way our rescue workers go on heedless of the possible injury to themselves. ``Where your actions would have me feel hopeless, I choose to feel great hope and faith in the overwhelming efforts of a Nation and world doing all that it can to come together as one people. ``Where your actions would have me feel powerless, I choose to feel empowered by my own actions in assisting the recovery in any way that I am able. ``Where you would have us cry tears of sorrow, I choose, and have chosen over the past few days, to cry tears of joy for the two rescue workers who exited the wreckage and were not added to the list of casualties, and for the acts of human kindness being expressed on a global scale. ``Where you have sent fire balls through the sky, I choose to light candles as an expression of spirit and solidarity. ``Where you have attempted to cause chaos, I choose to find stability in simple things, like the gifts of a first grade class sending a thousand peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with Hershey kisses taped to the top to the rescue teams. ``Where you have looked to demoralize us, we have chosen as a people to find a depth of national cohesion I had not thought possible. ``Where you would have me feel hate, I choose to give you none of my emotional energy. You get nothing from me, especially not something as strong and powerful as hate. You will be treated like the cancer you are and cut off of the body of humanity to save the greater whole. I hope that this is done with the medical detachment and accuracy of a surgeon cutting out the bad tissue to preserve what is good. ``Where you would have us overreact to your handiwork to prove to the world that we are evil, I would choose to respond and take out only those who would create such a chaos in the future and on other innocents of our global family. I pray my country feels the same way. ``In short, where you have looked to do us a great disservice, we have chosen to do ourselves a great service. We have chosen to take this as a reminder of what we really are. We have chosen to see each other as people, not as colors or races or creeds or majorities or minorities, but as people `with certain inalienable rights.'. ``We will continue to choose.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the article I referred to earlier from The Washington Post. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2001] N.J. Town Becomes Community of Sorrow Commuter Haven Took Heavy Hit (By Dale Russakoff) Middletown, N.J.--It was the water, and the great city just 10 miles across, that drew them here. By train or bus, New York is little more than an hour away, but by far the most romantic commute--an oxymoron in most other towns--is by water. At dawn, people would leave split-levels and colonials and ranch homes by the thousands, board ferries at Sandy Point Bay and, 45 minutes later, look up from laptops and newspapers to see the sun rising behind the majestic Manhattan skyline and the World Trade Center towers, where much of Middletown worked. Wall Street money built mansions in places such as Greenwich, Conn., and Larchmont, N.Y., but in Middletown, as the name implies, it created a suburban ideal for the Street's up-and-comers--safe neighborhoods, good schools, strong churches, open spaces, roomy houses with mortgages they didn't choke on. And so when the twin towers fell on Sept. 11, much of Middletown fell with them. The official toll stands at 36, and authorities fear it will reach 50--among the highest, if not the highest, of any town outside New York City. But the aggregate number doesn't begin to convey the losses. For that, you have to visit St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, which lost 26 parishioners. Or the nursery school at Middletown Reformed Church, where five children lost parents. Or the practice last Wednesday night of the Middletown Youth Athletic Association's girls' traveling basketball team, which lost its beloved coach of the last four years. Or the boys' team, on which one player lost his father and another, his mother. Everyone is grieving for someone they knew by face, if not by name: the neighbor who was always working in his yard on Saturdays, the mother with the beautiful baby in the grocery store line, the father who cheered so loudly on the soccer sidelines, the familiar-looking man on the 6:24 a.m. train or the 7 a.m. ferry. The Rev. John Dobrosky, the pastor at St. Mary's scarcely sleeps nowadays. He found himself in the epicenter of loss the other day while counseling fifth-graders at the parish school. ``How many of you lost someone close to you? he asked the class of 24 boys and girls in uniforms of light blue shirts and dark pants or skirts. Twelve hands went up, followed by a litany, delivered in young monotones: Steve's daddy. My dad's best friend. My basketball coach. My baseball coach. My neighbor. Ryan's uncle. Christine's uncle. My best friend's dad. Mrs. Hoey's husband. The religion teacher showed a visitor a letter she had received, signed by two sixth-grade girls: ``I know God loves us. But if he loves us so much, why did he let this happen? I know everything happens for a reason, but how could there be a reason for something this horrible to happen? I guess what I'm trying to say is, will you please explain this to me?'' The same day, Dobrosky visited a parishioner, Eileen Hoey, to give her the grim news that the body of her husband, Pat, had been found in the rubble known to the world as Ground Zero. Pat Hoey, 53, a civil engineer, was executive manager of tunnels, bridges and terminals for the Port Authority of New Your and New Jersey on the 64th floor of the North Tower. He worked 31 years for the Authority, the only employer he'd ever had, and he loved it, said his son Rob, a systems analyst for NEC America in Herndon. Pat Hoey loved the George Washington Bridge most of all. He led the projects that lit up like a constellation for the millennium celebration last year and rigged it to hold a massive American flag on July 4 and special occasions. He e- mailed pictures of the bridge to his children. ``I've got it as the wallpaper on my desk top at work,'' Rob Hoey said. Last week, the Port Authority hung the huge flag on the George Washington Bridge in Patrick Hoey's honor. After visiting the Hoeys, Dobrosky collapsed in a chair in the church rectory. ``We've seen evil. We've even smelled it,'' he said, pointing out the window, toward Sandy Point Bay. Amid a spectacularly blue sky, a grayish yellow film had settled just above the tree line. ``The cloud has crossed the bay,'' he said. ``Look, it's still there.'' There were clouds over Middletown before Sept. 11, but in retrospect, they seem almost see-through. For months, pastors and counselors had been ministering to distraught breadwinners laid off by nearby Lucent Technologies, the once high-flying spinoff of AT&T that went into decline with the high-tech bust. Now the families and friends of Middletown's missing or dead wish their loved ones had been so lucky as to have been laid off before Sept. 11. More than half of them worked for Cantor Fitzgerald, the fabulously successful bond brokerage at the top of World Trade Center Tower One that lost 700 employees. For a generation now, Middletown has been a beacon for the young traders of ``Cantor Fitz.'' Robert Feeney, 47, who retired in 1998 after 20 years with the firm, said he moved to Middletown in 1983 on the advice of his boss, who then lived here. Then younger people came in, and followed him. ``We all worked hard, always under pressure, in close quarters, and we became a group,'' Feeney said. ``And it was just natural that young couples met and got married, and then the next step was to move to Middletown.'' From here, they commuted together on New Jersey Transit trains, on the Seastreak ferry or in car pools to Jersey City, where they took underground PATH trains through one of Patrick Hoey's tunnels to the base of the World Trade Center. They lived around the corner from one another, took vacations together, put their children in the same preschools. ``I went to their weddings, their christenings, their children's first communions,'' Feeney said of his younger colleagues. Now he's going to their wakes. ``Some of these girls are 35 years old with four kids, or 32 with three kids. A few of the kids are just starting grammar schools,'' he said. ``What have they done to these families?'' Middletown, with 70,000 residents, is a town with no center and no downtown. But in its extraordinary grief, it is now a community. St. Mary's set up a 24-hour counseling and prayer center staffed by two employees, and suddenly a flood of volunteers materialized to help keep it running. The Seastreak ferry turned itself into a lifeline, carrying more than 4,000 fleeing people from New York after the attack and ferrying supplies and personnel to the rescue effort ever since. Patrick Hoey's neighbors, including some his family never had met, gathered at his house one night, holding candlelight vigil at his door. ``Some of them said, `We always saw him in the garden. He waved every time we drove by,' ``Rob Hoey said. Last Wednesday night, the Middletown Youth Athletic Association's all-star girl's basketball team held its first practice without Paul Nimbley, 42, their beloved Coach Paul, who in four years taught them much of what they know about the game, and much about life, too. The girls, 12- and 13- year-olds, were awesome, as usual, sinking shots with nothing but net, spinning and blocking like their heroines on the New York Liberty. These were moves Coach Paul had taught them, they said--moves they practiced with all their hearts, in part because they loved to hear him say, ``You're looking really good out there, kid.'' He and his wife had five children, and he had a big job at Cantor Fitzgerald, but somehow he always had time for the team. The team has been at his house every night since, making cookies and pasta for his been at his house every night since, making cookies and pasta for his family, taking turns playing with his baby son to spare his wife, Cherri. On Wednesday, in his honor, they made themselves practice, with the support of three assistant coaches, fathers who said he had brought out the best in them as well as their daughters. ``We're going to play for Paul,'' a tearful Lauren Einecker, 12, said after the practice, her ponytail tied with a sweat band. ``He's going to be in our hearts every time we step out on the court,'' said Shannon Gilmartin, 12, a slip of a point guard. Off to the side, John Dini, now the team's head coach, was fighting back tears. ``They call it terrorism,'' he said. ``But to me, it feels like my heart's been broken.'' Not all the people of Middletown are comforted by talk of war. Many have children in the military, who may soon be in harm's way. And several who lost family members in the Sept. 11 attack are horrified to hear Americans calling for people of other countries to die en masse to average their loved ones. ``You don't want a bomb to drop anywhere. You don't want anyone to go through this,'' said John Pietrunti, whose brother Nicholas, 38, was a back office worker at Cantor Fitzgerald. ``I turned on the TV and saw that big banner, `Operation Infinite Justice,' and it was as if they were talking about a movie. I expected them to say, `Coming soon.' . . . The way people are talking about retaliation is a disrespect to my brother and to everyone who died there.'' All around Middletown are reminders of the simple things that used to define life here, most of all, the lure of the water. It is written in the names of streets: Oceanview Avenue, Seaview Avenue, Bayview Terrace. Nobody has yet gotten used to the new meaning of the water. Anthony Bottone, owner of Bottone Realty Group Inc., showed a residential lot to developers last weekend and found himself saying, ``You could build a $500,000 house here and see the New York skyline from the second floor.'' ``You should have seen the looks I got,'' he said. The ferries resumed regular service last Monday, but now they carry more than commuters. Among the travelers are rescue workers, ironworkers, electricians and contractors, all involved in excavating the rubble. There are psychologists and social workers, too, in case passengers need emotional support. Some of last week's commuters were on the 7:55 a.m. ferry from New Jersey on Sept. 11, which reached Wall Street just as the first plane struck. Others had lost up to a dozen friends. Social worker Aurore Maren rode the ferries all week, and was struck by the commuters' distress. ``They're helpless in their sense of loss and they're helpless in their sense there's nothing they can do to stop this from spinning even more wildly out of control,'' she said. Maren was struck, also, by something else. As the ferry passed under the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge, opening up that amazing, wide-angle view of the Statue of Liberty and the New York skyline, the commuters did something she'd never seen before. They all turned around in their seats. They couldn't bear to look.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to note that Jaswant Singh, who serves as both Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Defense of India, is visiting the United States. He arrived on Sunday, September 30th and will depart on Tuesday, October 2nd. During Minister Singh's visit, he met with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to show support to the U.S. in the fight against terrorism on the global level. Minister Singh is also visiting Washington, DC to meet with top officials at the White House, the State Department and the Defense Department, as well as House and Senate leaders. Minister Singh's visit to the U.S. is symbolic of India's unconditional support for the U.S. This support is based on shared democratic principles and common interests. Additionally, from the very day that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington occurred, India has come forward in strong support of the United States, offering its unwavering support for the war against terrorism. India's prompt and bold action in coming forth to stand united with the U.S. stems from the fact that this country has been on the front lines in the fight against international, terrorism for the years. Over the past 10 to 15 years, more than 53,000 civilians in India have been killed as a result of cross-border terrorism. These victims have suffered at the hands of many of the same terrorist networks believed to be behind the attack on the U.S. India continues to be subject to the ravages of cross-border terrorism to this very day. Just yesterday afternoon, Monday, October 1st, a massive explosion near the main entrance of the State Assembly in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir left at least 29 persons dead and 40 injured. In addition, two militants firing from automatics later stormed the heavily-guarded assembly complex. The state assembly was in session when the blast occurred. Those killed included five policemen, two from the Central Reserve Police Force, a schoolgirl and six state assembly employees. Eyewitnesses said a suicide bomber drove a jeep laden with explosives up to the main entrance of the state assembly and shortly after, the jeep exploded into a massive ball of fire leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistan-based militant group, has claimed responsibility for the blast. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has condemned the bombing, stating: ``I would say, first of all, that we very strongly condemn the attack today in Kashmir, as we have previous attacks. We think that no cause can justify the deliberate targeting of civilians in this manner. We extend our sympathies to the victims of the attack, we extend our condolences to India, a country that's suffered many terrorist attacks over the years. India is a key partner in the global coalition against terrorism, and we do believe that terrorism must be ended everywhere.'' In statements from top Government officials, India has expressed its condolences for the terrible losses, its solidarity with the American people, and its pledge of cooperation with the Administration. We have learned in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the number of missing Indian nationals and persons of Indian origin is estimated at about 250. Cooperation between India and the United States, the world's two largest democracies, extends beyond the current international campaign against terrorism, and has been steadily developing for the past few years. During the U.S.-India Summits in New Delhi in March 2000 and Washington in September 2000, the two countries established frameworks for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, preserving stability and growth in the global economy, protecting the environment, combating infectious diseases and expanding trade, especially in emerging knowledge-based industries and high technology areas. However, at this time of crisis and tragedy for the American people, India has shown itself to be a good friend and a reliable and valued partner. India, with its strategic location and its excellent intelligence data, represents a vital resource and a logical partner for cooperation with the U.S. At this time of crisis, India has been recognized and appreciated in public statements from President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top officials in the Administration and the visit to Washington of Minister Singh allows U.S. leaders to demonstrate the importance that the U.S. attaches to our growing relations with India.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Armenian Republic on the nation's Tenth Anniversary of Independence. Today, citizens of Armenia, as well as people of Armenian descent here in the United States and around the world celebrate their independence from the former Soviet Union. Sadly, they will also be mourning the victims of the September 11th attack on our country. Armenia's early response to the attack was to assist American staff in ensuring the security of the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan. President Kocharian joined other world leaders in expressing both his solidarity with America and his shock and sorrow in a letter sent to President Bush. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit President Kocharian's letter to President Bush for the record. Since its independence, democratic nations have welcomed Armenia into the family. I am proud that this Congress has consistently voted to provide humanitarian economic development assistance to help Armenia preserve democracy and the institutions of civil society and to continue its transition to a free market economy. The United States has a fundamental national interest in bringing about stability in the strategically located Caucasus region and in supporting those emerging nations like Armenia that share our values. Given the horrific events of September 11th, it becomes even more important to ensure that the countries in the Caucasus move forward together--economically and politically. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the tensions in the region subside and that the long- standing differences that divide the countries of the region are resolved. Winners and losers in the Caucasus will only foster greater insecurity and instability at a time when we need to bring everyone together to combat terrorism. I have been encouraged by Armenia's ongoing attempts to reach out to its neighbors--Turkey and Azerbaijan-- in a constructive manner. Mr. Speaker, the story of the Armenian people is an unforgettable story of triumph over adversity and tragedy. Earlier in this century, in one of history's most horrible crimes against humanity, 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. We must continue to remind the world that this genocide is an historic fact--despite the efforts of so-called ``revisionists,'' many of them funded by the Turkish government, to deny the truth--and to make sure that our nation, the world community, and especially the Turkish nation come to terms with and appropriately commemorate this historic fact. Mr. Speaker, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that allowed the Armenian people to re-establish a state and a nation, to create a society where their language, culture, religion and other institutions would prosper. The people of Armenia have endeavored to build a free and proud nation, based on the principles of democracy and a market economy. The tiny, landlocked Republic of Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors, who have imposed blockades halting the delivery of basic necessities and greatly hindering economic development. Despite the dual blockades, Armenia continues to implement economic and democratic reforms. During the first six months of this year, Armenia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 6.4 percent over last year's level. And during the last year, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have publicly noted Armenia's economic progress. Despite this progress, I would like to say that the economic reality of daily life for the people of the Republic of Armenia continues to be extremely hard. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we mark future Independence Days of the Republic of Armenia, we can look back with pride on building peace and prosperity in the entire Trans-Caucasus region, so that the people of Armenia and their neighbors can enjoy a stable and hopeful future. I hope that the Republics of Turkey and Azerbaijan will respond positively to Armenia's repeated offers to normalize relations. Specifically, I hope that Turkey will allow for the exchange of diplomats and allow the free flow of goods and people across the borders. And I hope that, with the active participation of the United States, we will resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, in a manner that guarantees the security and self-determination of the people of Karabagh. Finally, I wish the Armenian people well on the occasion of their independence day, and, more important, in their ongoing effort to establish good relations with its neighbors and build a vibrant democracy so that their children may prosper in the homeland of their ancestors. President of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 11 September 2001. His Excellency George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President, I have learned with utter shock the news about the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building in Washington, which resulted in human loss and massive destruction. The evil of terrorism has shown its ugly face and should be confronted with determination and resolve. Armenia joins the world in condemning this most deplorable and inhuman act of violence. On behalf of the people of Armenia and myself personally, I express our most heartfelt condolences to the people of America and to the bereaved families. We share your grief and wish you strength and patience. Robert Kocharian.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce and honor Mrs. Dorothy Bryan O'Neill as she celebrates her 90th birthday on September 23, 2001. As a devoted wife and mother, Dorothy has led an exemplary life of dedication to her family and to her community. A native of Charleston, SC, Dorothy Bryan was born on September 23, 1911. Upon her graduation from Burke High School, she married Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neill and became his wife, then mother to their 12 children, including their third oldest Lawrence E. O'Neill (Buddy), a resident of the county of Monmouth, NJ, since 1950. As her new family grew larger with the birth of each child, her commitment to them grew as well; 11 children have graduated college, some with graduate degrees, all going on to successful careers ranging from lawyers to business entrepreneurs. Carrying with her the inspiration of her mother, whom she considers her personal hero, Dorothy has maintained her strength and fully embodies the traits of kindness, selflessness, and encouragement that are only possessed by a truly devoted mother. Her own children describe her as their best friend, their confidant, and their trusted advisor. Today Dorothy is defined as ``a beacon and family matriarch for whom we all should aspire.'' In reaching her 90th year, Dorothy O'Neill has done more than fulfill her goal of raising successful children; rather, her dream lives on through her 54 grandchildren, 19 great-grandchildren and 4 great-great-grandchildren. ``Mrs. O'Neill once called her children an investment that paid many dividends.'' Fellow community members and friends admire Dorothy for her lifelong commitment to the idea of family and the important role that family plays in our society. As both a woman and an African-American, she is an inspiration to those who need to work a little bit harder in the midst of adversity in order to obtain personal achievement. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that you join me in distinguishing Dorothy Bryan O'Neill, as her 12 children and family celebrate her life as a most remarkable woman, wife and professional mother, in addition to her continuing efforts to sustain the invaluable institution of the family.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the attacks by terrorists yesterday against the United States shocked this Nation, but let it be known to those responsible that we will track them down and punish them. This Nation will respond and this Congress will stand united with our President to ensure those responsible are held accountable for their actions. Any nation that supports or harbors these terrorists should be retaliated against by the United States to the full extent of our military capabilities. Mr. Speaker, today, as heroic men and women in New York and Washington continue to search for victims, we pray for the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones and those who still wait to receive word on the missing. Yesterday, after witnessing the horrors at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, citizens of this great Nation demonstrated their courage and their willingness to help their neighbors in need. In my home State of New Jersey and in my district, thousands of residents came forward and contributed blood for the victims of the World Trade Center. So many of my constituents answered the call for blood that many had to wait in line for several hours before they were able to assist. Owners of ferry boats in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey transported displaced workers trapped on the tip of Manhattan to a safer spot in New Jersey. Emergency personnel, doctors, and nurses from New Jersey have worked around the clock to assist the courageous firefighters and police officers in New York. The reaction to this tragedy by the American people is proof of how strong this Nation is. The government, including this Congress, continues to operate. We will likely bring up legislation tomorrow to allocate Federal aid for the rescue efforts in New York and Washington. Mr. Speaker, terrorism does not work against the United States. It will only strengthen our will to stamp out this new evil.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond, if I can, briefly, to some of the comments that my colleague from Colorado made with regard to the economy. Mr. Speaker, I do realize that we in Congress all have an obligation, certainly, to work for economic recovery, and there is, of course, a great deal of concern about the economy right now because of some of the indications we have had over the last week with regard to the stock market, with regard to some of the unemployment figures that have come through. But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out, and this is really the gist of my comments this evening, I do not intend to use the full hour, but I need to spend a little time reiterating once again the negative impact of President Bush's tax cut, the tax cut that was supported by the majority of the Republicans, who are the majority here in the House of Representatives, and which I think has had a very negative impact and certainly over the long term will have a very negative impact on the economy. And my fear that it is going to lead to President Bush suggesting and the Republican majority suggesting at some point, if it has not happened already, that we dip into the Medicare and the Social Security Trust Funds in order to pay for ongoing expenses with the Congressional budget, with the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, before we had the 4 weeks when we as Members of Congress were back in our districts during August, during the summer, we had been told over and over again by the President and the Republican leadership that there was no need to worry about this tax cut, this huge massive tax cut that primarily benefited wealthy Americans, because we could have the tax cut and we would also be able to make sure that, even with the tax cut, that we would have enough money left over to pay for the national priorities that President Bush outlined, an education bill, a new defense initiative to make sure that the military was ready in the event of war, and also a Medicare prescription drug benefit. We could have the tax cut and we would also be able to have money left over for those national priorities. We were also assured by the President and the Republican leadership that even with this massive tax cut that primarily favored the well-to- do, that we would have enough money for Social Security, that we would not dip into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Well, Democrats have been saying for over a year that none of those things were true; that the nature of the tax cut, the fact that it was so big, that what the President and the Republicans were proposing was so big, that it would basically make it impossible to not dip into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds and that there would not be any money left for any of those other priorities. Well, we are there today. We went home at the end of July, early August, we came back, and lo and behold, the numbers have come back about the budget and what money is available; and the Congressional Budget Office, among other agencies, have told us that none of those things are true, that we probably have already dipped into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds because of this massive tax cut that the President insisted on as the sort of milestone and the main thing that we wanted to accomplish in the first year of his Presidency. Just as some information, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office, this is from about a week or so ago, maybe it is 2 weeks now, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed what the Democrats have been saying for over a year, that the Bush tax cut is so big it forces the government to invade Social Security and Medicare trust funds. According to CBO, the government will be taking $30 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund and $170 billion from the Medicare trust fund over the next 5 years. The President talked about how in 2001, this fiscal year, we were going to have the second biggest surplus in history. But this year alone, the government is actually in deficit and must tap Medicare and Social Security to fund just routine government operations. If we listen to what President Bush is saying, he pretty much has said, well, we may have to tap into the Social Security trust fund. He has talked about, well, maybe if the economy continues to deteriorate, that will be necessary. So I do not think there is any question, Mr. Speaker, that we are headed down that road. It is a scary road because, first of all, I should point out before I talk about the negative consequences of this, the fact of the matter is, it could be a lot worse than even what the CBO is estimating now, because we have to remember that the Congressional Budget Office, in their making these projections that I talked about, these are baseline estimates, which basically assumes that there are no changes in spending. In other words, the CBO numbers do not assume that any of the other things that President Bush has talked about spending in this budget are going to happen, and it also assumes that the economy will pretty much stay the way it is rather than get any worse. If the economy worsens or if we tried to implement some of the things that the President has talked about, we could dip even further into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. I know that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman who just spoke, said he does not really want to hear about this because after all, we are supposed to be united and we are not supposed to be bickering over who caused this problem. Well, it is not a coincidence. The Bush tax cut is the reason. In only 8 months, the President, President Bush has taken us from a situation where we had a healthy surplus that was basically built up under the 8 years of President Clinton's administration and was a major contributing factor to the fact that the economy was booming, and in just 8 months, this fiscal situation has dramatically reversed itself because of the policies of President Bush. Now, I am not saying that I do not want to help solve the problem, but I have to lay the blame where the blame deserves to be placed. Things were good. The Federal Government was, for the first time, in surplus in the last 6 years of the Clinton administration. Now, in 8 months of the Bush administration, we are in a deficit once again. Now, let me talk a little bit if I can, Mr. Speaker, about the consequences of this, because there are a lot of different consequences. There are various aspects as to what we are faced with here in terms of Federal policy and the negative consequences. I only mention it, not because I want to dwell on the negative, but because I want us to understand where we are so that we can do something about it in the future. First of all, let me say I do not care what the other side says about this, the fact of the matter is that because we are now in this deficit situation, because of the Bush tax cut, we have destroyed any opportunity to spend any money on the national priorities that the President and others have talked about. If we listen to President Bush, he still talks about his education initiative and how there is going to be money now that is going to go back to the States and local school boards and to the schools throughout the country that are going to beef up education. Let me assure my colleagues that the money is not there to pay for it. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen unless we take the money from the Social Security trust fund. So I do not think it is going to happen. Number two, the President keeps talking about his defense priorities. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) just mentioned a missile defense system. Well, I do not particularly like what the President is talking about in terms of a missile defense program; but whatever he is talking about: he talks about more money for the soldiers, he talks about more money for weapons, he talks about all of these billions of dollars that are going to be necessary to put us in a state of military preparedness. The money is not going to be there. Mr. Speaker, these things are not going to happen. President Bush's tax cut destroyed any opportunity to spend money on education or on defense. Most of all, because these are the things that I hear most about from my constituents, I happen to have a district that has a higher proportion of senior citizens; and when I am home, as I was this weekend, they still talk to me about the high cost of prescription drugs and how they cannot afford it and how they would like to have Medicare include a prescription drugs program, which I have been a big supporter of. We have a health care task force on the Democratic side of the aisle. We have been working collectively to come up with a prescription drugs Medicare program, and we have endorsed several programs on the Democratic side that President Clinton talked about what he wanted to do to provide a prescription drugs program. Well, President Bush can tell us whatever he wants, but the money is not there, because of his tax cut, to pay for this Medicare prescription drug program. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any of these national priorities that the President has identified: education, defense, or a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, will ever happen because of this tax cut and because of the situation that we face today. Now, let me go on and talk a little more. It is not only that now, because of the tax cut, the Bush tax cut and the potential deficit that we do not have any money to spend on other priorities, but what is happening now is going to have a negative impact on the economy; and the fact of the matter is that what we do not have a surplus. And we are in a deficit situation. We hurt the economy; and we make it very, very difficult to have any economic recovery. If my colleagues on the Republican side are telling us that now they want to focus on what we can do to bring the economy back, certainly bypassing this tax cut and putting us in a deficit situation, they have made it much, much harder for us to achieve any economic recovery. Now, my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. Basically, we know that over the last year or so, the Federal Reserve has aggressively lowered short-term interest rates, but long-term interest rates have barely moved. They are still high. It was interesting, because at a July Senate Banking Committee hearing, we had Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, and he very specifically indicated that the Bush tax cuts impact on the surplus in future years has prevented a decline in long-term interest rates. The reason, a major reason why the economy was doing well during the Clinton era was because when President Clinton created a situation where there was a Federal surplus, it meant that the interest rates were low on their own, even without the Federal Reserve action; and it basically made it so that money was available. The Federal Government was not borrowing as much and taking money out of the system for lenders who wanted to use it to lend money to companies or factories so that they could build new factories and come up with new means of production and create more jobs. That drain that comes, the drain on the economy that comes from a Federal deficit is going to have a terribly negative impact on the economy and make it much more difficult for us to recover because the long-term interest rates will remain high, because it will be more difficult to borrow and raise capital for new production and create new jobs. At this Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearing, just to again reiterate that what I am saying is not pie in the sky, we had a little dialogue between the Federal Chairman Greenspan and Senator Schumer from New York. And if I could just repeat this, this was the Senator, or I do not know if I can use the word ``Senator,'' but a member of the other body who said, and I quote, ``One thing you mentioned, Mr. Greenspan, you thought that rates hadn't come down enough was that the rate of decline of Treasury debt had not been as great as we thought. Is that due to the tax cut?'' The Senator said. And Federal Chairman Greenspan said, ``I think it is basically due to a series of things. One, the tax cut.'' Senator Schumer says, ``Right. So the tax cut did have a negative effect on this?'' And Alan Greenspan says, ``Oh, yes, no question.'' So the Bush tax cut is not only making it difficult to spend any money on education, defense, Medicare prescription drugs, and may kill all of those things; but in addition, it is having a negative impact on the economy and it is going to be very, very difficult to achieve the kind of economic recovery that now the President and my Republican colleagues are saying should be a priority. Lastly, and this I guess is the most obvious one, but I want to go into it a little bit. What is happening here now in terms of us going back into a deficit and, inevitably, it seems, spending the money from the Social Security and the Medicare trust fund, is that the money is not going to be available in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds to pay benefits. Right now, the seniors that I represent, Medicare is probably the most important Federal program that they have available to them. Social Security is the most important program, because it is just, if not more important, because of the fact this they depend on the income from Social Security. Well, right now we are okay. But we all know that in a few years, there will not be as much money available for Medicare and Social Security because the number of people who will become seniors, the so- called baby boom generation of which I am a part, when they get to be 65, there are going to be more of them and there is going to be a need for more money to pay out their retirement Social Security benefits and take care of their Medicare and take care of their health care needs. So the reason that the Congress a few years ago started to build up this surplus in the trust funds for Medicare and Social Security was because they knew that maybe by 2020 or 2030, 20 or 30 years from now, if not sooner, but certainly by then, that there would be a lot more seniors and we would need more money to build up in this trust fund to pay out the benefits. Well, if we now dip into the Medicare and Social Security trust fund, this so-called surplus, that money is not going to be there. Now, what the Democrats have been doing when Clinton was President was they recognized this and they said, okay, let us take a certain percentage of this surplus and general revenues that we have and let us dedicate it towards Social Security and Medicare. In other words, we had a Social Security and Medicare trust fund that had a surplus on their own, but President Clinton said, let us take money from the surplus we are building in general revenues from tax revenues and let us apply that to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds so that even more money would be available in 2020 or 2030 when we needed it. Well, that is all gone. There is nothing now; there is no general revenue surplus available to apply it to Social Security and Medicare. Instead, we are now taking from those trust funds to pay for general operations to operate the government. Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy to figure out what is going on here, but the reality is very dire, because now there is a serious question about whether or not the Social Security and Medicare money will be available for people my generation when they get to be seniors. Now, what I am going to mention now does not necessarily relate to the budget and to what the President did with his tax cut. But ironically, in the middle of all of this, at the very time when President Bush's tax cut is having this negative impact and threatening Social Security and Medicare, we have the President, President Bush, setting up this commission, this Social Security commission that over the summer, including during the August break, started to provide all of this information about how they want to privatize Social Security. They may want to raise the age again when one gets Social Security. There is all this potential tinkering with the Social Security system that I think is going to make the situation even worse, because if we privatize Social Security, or say to people that they can take a certain amount of their money outside the system and invest it in the stock market or in something else, there again, that is taking money away from the Social Security system that is not going to be available for the baby boom generation when they get to be 65. Mr. Speaker, we no longer have the situation which we had under President Clinton and the Democrats where the general revenue surplus is being applied to boost up Social Security and Medicare. We now have a situation where President Bush's tax cut is probably going to make Congress, or maybe we are already doing it, dip into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. At the same time, we have this commission out there that President Bush is instituting that is proposing to take even more money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds so that people can invest money in the stock market or whatever. I cannot imagine a worse situation. Mr. Speaker, I recognize and I agree with my colleague, my Republican colleague who spoke before me, the gentleman from Colorado, that I do not want to just come here and talk about how bad things are. But if we do not recognize why they are getting bad, then we are never going to correct them. This Congress has to think about ways of dealing with the fact that this tax cut has really hurt the economy, threatened Social Security, and makes it impossible for us to invest in other national priorities such as education, prescription drugs under Medicare, and defense needs. Until we recognize the fact that this is the cause or a major cause of the problem, I do not know how we are going to correct it. I am not going to just stand here and put my head in the sand and say this is just happening through natural causes. This is happening because of the President and the Republican leadership's tax policy. That is why we are in the situation that we are in, and we need to recognize it before we can move on.