Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, according to the morning papers, the Republican majority may now be ready to drop its new ethics rules and restore stronger rules that were written by Democrats and Republicans. It is about time. We need to restore the old rules immediately so the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can begin investigating possible unethical behavior, questionable actions that have been in the national papers over the last couple of months. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, said back in November 1995: ``The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups, or are they working hard to represent their constituents. The American people have a right to know.'' That was the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 10 years ago. The majority leader was right. The American people deserve answers; and, unfortunately, they will not get those answers under the weakened ethics rules. Hopefully, the Republican majority has come to its senses and will restore the old rules later this week. If the majority leader really believes his comments from 10 years ago, I would think he would join us in our fight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the gracious humanitarian efforts of the Tishcon Corporation, a company that manufactures vitamins and nutritional supplements. Throughout the years, this company has generously donated vitamins, nutritional supplements, money, and time to benefit those in need around the world. Raj K. Chopra, Vipin Patel, and others established Tishcon Corporation in 1977. The company has consistently developed high quality products while always maintaining the high satisfaction of its customers. In conjunction with Vitamin Relief USA, Tishcon Corporation provides free multivitamins each day for more than 14,000 children at risk for malnutrition. In addition to providing multivitamins for children, Tishcon Corporation has provided over 2,500 multivitamins to at-risk homeless adults and senior citizens every day. Not only does this company provide vitamins and supplements to those in need, they have also donated money to assist in the distribution of these as well. I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the outstanding humanitarian accomplishments of Tishcon Corporation, an exemplary model of corporate humanity and citizenship in today's world of business.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order on the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the year, the House has been conducting its business without an organized Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in place to investigate possible unethical behavior by Members of Congress. Republicans have tried to blame Democrats on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for this standoff, but the fact is they have nobody to blame but themselves. At the beginning of this year, the Republican leadership went ahead and changed the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does its business. In the past, whenever ethics changes were being considered, they were addressed in a bipartisan fashion, with both Democrats and Republicans at the table. That is the only way ethics reform can honestly be addressed, but the Republican leadership ignored that protocol and strong-armed enough of its Members into passing new and weakened ethics rules. The American people need to understand that these new rules will allow either party, Democrat or Republican, to protect its own Members. Under the new Republican rules, if the majority of the committee cannot determine whether or not an investigation should proceed, after 45 days of receiving a complaint, the complaint would simply be dropped. No action would take place. Since the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is made up of five Members from each party, either side could prevent an ethics investigation from moving forward against one of its Members. Now, this is not the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is supposed to work. Under the old bipartisan rules, if the committee could not come to an agreement on how to proceed after 45 days, an investigative subcommittee was created. The weakening of the ethics rules by House Republicans did not fool editorial writers, both liberal and conservative, who follow House proceedings closely; and I just wanted to give some examples. The conservative Chicago Tribune recently said, How do House Republicans respond to ethical lapses? By trying to bury them. The Hartford Courant concluded, ``The committee has been careening toward ethical oblivion in recent years, as the majority Republicans have relaxed the standards, eased up on investigations and created trapdoors through which alleged transgressors could escape.'' The Republican leadership did not stop at just weakening the ethics rules, the Republican leadership also purged three Republican Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, three Members who were not in the pockets of the leadership. After losing his chairmanship of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) told The Washington Post that there is ``a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did. Nobody should be there to protect anybody. They should be there to protect the integrity of the institution.'' Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans should listen to their former ethics chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). The integrity of the House of Representatives is much more important than any one Member. These actions by the Republican majority really make one wonder why the changes are necessary now. It seems clear to me that the Republican leadership went to all of this trouble to protect one of its leaders. Last month the Wall Street Journal, which has a conservative editorial page, charged there is an ``odor,'' an ``unsavory whiff'' at the very highest reaches of this House. Every single day, it seems, more revelations come out about questionable actions by a member of the Republican leadership. These daily revelations should concern every Member of the institution. My Democrat colleagues and I realize the integrity of the House is at stake. We cannot allow weakened ethics rules to move forward to protect anyone, and it is critical that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct be allowed to do its job and that is impossible under the new Republican rules. Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said back in November 1995, ``The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington, are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist- paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups, or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The American people have a right to know.'' That was the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), in his own words 10 years ago. Let me say, the majority leader was right, the American people deserve answers and they will not get those answers under the weakened Republican ethics rules. That is why Democrats are fighting so hard to have the old rules restored. If the majority leader believes his comments from 10 years ago, I would think he would join us in our fight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which actually took place on April 24, last Sunday. As the first genocide of the 20th Century, it is imperative that we remember this atrocity and collectively demand reaffirmation of this crime against humanity. Just this week I was joined by my co-chair of the Armenian Caucus and 176 additional Members of Congress in sending yet another joint congressional letter to President Bush urging him to use the word ``genocide'' in his April 24 statement. With over 178 signatures, which is 9 more than last year, the message in this letter is loud and clear: that 90 years is too long to wait for justice to be served and proper recognition to be made. Mr. Speaker, I received today a copy of President Bush's statement with regard to the April 24 commemoration, and, unfortunately, once again he did not use the term ``genocide.'' And I think that is unfortunate because it has been consistently the case that this Congress and the United States in general over the last 90 years has referred to the Armenian genocide as a genocide, and it is unfortunate that the President continues not to use the term. This past Wednesday the Caucus, with the cooperation of the Armenian American community, organized a commemorative event on Capitol Hill in the Cannon Caucus room. We were joined by over 350 members of the community as well as numerous Senators and Members of Congress who all spoke on one message: that the United States owes it to the Armenian American community, to the 1.5 million that were massacred in the genocide, and to its own history to reaffirm what is a fact. As we saw on Wednesday night and as we have seen time and time again, the United States has a proud history of action and response to the Armenian genocide. During a time when hundreds of thousands were left orphaned and starving, a time when a nation was on the verge of complete extermination, the U.S. chose to step up. Individuals like Ambassador Morgenthau and Leslie Davis witnessed the atrocities firsthand, and their conscience did not allow them to simply look the other way. It is now time that the U.S. stops looking the other way, reaffirms what we all know to be fact, and properly recognizes the Armenian genocide. I wanted to mention that I was very proud earlier this year when our Ambassador to Armenia, Ambassador Evans, referred to the Armenian genocide as a genocide, and it was unfortunate that he was essentially rebuked by the State Department because of the words he used. Because the fact of the matter is that when we talk about the Armenian genocide, we are simply acknowledging historical fact, and we feel very strongly that if at the time when the genocide occurred, the world and the United States, if we had taken more notice and had tried to prevent it, I think it would have served as a lesson so that the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and so many other atrocities that took place in the 20th century would not have occurred. If we are going to see a situation in the future in this 21st century when we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, we must acknowledge the Armenian genocide. We know even now, history in the last 100 years has witnessed more horrible episodes since the Armenian genocide. As we speak, the Sudanese Government is taking a page out of the Turkish Government's denial playbook and continuing the vicious cycle of genocide denial in what is happening in Darfur. If we are ever to live in a world where crimes do not go unpunished and fundamental human rights are respected and preserved, we must come to recognize the Armenian genocide, thus allowing for proper reparations and restitutions to be made. I was very upset, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday when I read in the New York Times that the Turkish envoy to the United States continued to say that the only reason why Armenians and Americans wanted the genocide recognized was because they wanted restitution or they wanted reparations. That is simply not true. But it is also true that restitution and reparations must be made. For those who commit a state- sponsored genocide or a state-sponsored massacre, it is important that the state, in this case, Turkey, acknowledge that it occurred and that restitution and reparations are made, just as in the case with Germany in the case of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to introducing a genocide resolution with my colleagues in the 109th Congress, and as we did in the 108th Congress and the 106th. We will do everything in our power to get legislation passed and reaffirm the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide. Today the United States has the profound responsibility of carrying on the tradition and the work of our predecessors in continuing to combat genocide whenever and wherever it takes place. We must show the world that individuals such as Ambassador Morgenthau did not stay quiet 90 years ago, and we in Congress certainly owe it to them not to stay quiet today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the year, the House Republican leadership has worked to undermine the ethics process here in the House. First, the leadership floated an ethics proposal that would have allowed members of its leadership to continue to serve in leadership if they were indicted. Now under the weakened rules, the new chairman of the committee says he will conduct an investigation of one of the Republican leaders. The American people should not be fooled. The leadership rushed through a new rule that ends ethics complaints after 45 days. And then the Republican leadership purged the committee of three members who were not always willing to toe the party line. And then they replaced them with party loyalists. The Republican majority has weakened the ethics rules to the point that they are meaningless. The Republican leaders have gone to extreme lengths to protect one of their own. And now they are trying to deceive the American people into believing that a real investigation would actually take place. That is a farce.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what are House Republicans afraid of? True, there are constant newspaper reports about a member of the Republican leadership participating in questionable activities dealing with Washington lobbyists, trips overseas and questionable financial dealings. However, if Republicans are so confident that these activities do not constitute a breaking of the House rules, why have the Republicans made it virtually impossible for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to do its job? Earlier this year, the Republicans weakened the ethics rules. Under the new Republican rules, if a majority of the committee cannot determine whether or not an investigation should proceed after 45 days of receiving a complaint, it would simply be dropped. Under the old bipartisan ethics rules, a subcommittee was created after the 45-day deadline to investigate the ethics charges. It is no wonder Republican leaders are so confident. If they keep their Republican troops on the committee in line, they do not have to worry about an investigation. And this is no way to run an ethics committee. It is time that House Republicans join the Democrats in rejecting these new rules in favor of fair, bipartisan rules that restore confidence to the House ethics process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor to express my deep sorrow for Diana Goudsward Collentine and her daughters, Kristina and Jennifer, the daughter and granddaughters of James and Marjorie Goudsward. On January 4, 2002, Diana and her two daughters were walking in a school safety zone in Waldwick, NJ when they were struck by an automobile operated by a medically impaired driver. This accident resulted in the tragic deaths of all three citizens. In this tragedy's aftermath, Doug Goudsward, brother to Diane, has dedicated himself to preventing the medically impaired driver from obtaining a valid driver's license in another State, thereby further endangering the public. To this day, his brave and persistent efforts to protect the public have unfortunately not been fruitful. Mr. Speaker, this situation is quite tragic and it is clear that Congress should work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) to study the complex and controversial issue of medically impaired drivers. Congress and the NHTSA should develop guidelines, which are respectful to individual drivers, while setting appropriate standards for driving privileges that ensure the safety of communities and the general public.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on March 25th Greece celebrated its 184th year of independence. I am here tonight to praise a society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture, and, in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. There are many of us in Congress, on both sides of the spectrum, who are staunchly committed to preserving and strengthening the ties between Greek and American people. In the years since Greek independence, Americans and Greeks have grown ever closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and close personal friendship. The timeless values of Greek culture have endured for centuries, indeed for millennia. Four hundred years of control by the Ottoman Empire could not overcome the Greek people's determination to be free. But, I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, to this day, the Greek people must battle against oppression. For over 30 years now, Greece has stood firm in its determination to bring freedom and independence to the illegally occupied nation of Cyprus. I also have grown increasingly concerned over the Bush administration's blatant shift in policy towards Cyprus that's become apparent since the Greek Cypriots rejected a United Nations reunification proposal offered by U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan last year. I reject the belief that the United States Government should punish Greek Cypriots for going to the voting booth and concluding, rightly in my opinion, that the Annan Plan forced the Greek Cypriots to make far more concessions than Turkey. I'm particularly concerned by comments made earlier this year by Secretary Rice in Turkey in which she stated: (and I quote) ``We are looking at what we can do to ease the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots because, we, like everyone else, were disappointed that the Annan plan was not adopted. We have taken some steps, direct aid for instance to Turkish Cypriots, but there are probably other things that we should look at doing.'' I shouldn't have to remind the Secretary of State that the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots derives from the ongoing occupation of the northern third of the island by Turkish troops and that our nations efforts should be concentrated on the withdrawal of these troops. While the U.S. government should work to make the lives of Turkish- Cypriots better, it's simply unacceptable for our government to help the Turkish-Cypriot 'government' that continues to illegally rule the northern third of the island. The Bush administration simply cannot ignore well-established international law as a way to punish the Greek Cypriots for their democratic vote in opposition to the Annan Plan. It's important that Secretary of State take a historic look at the Cyprus problem over the last 30 years when developing U.S. policy. It's important the U.S. Government not only look at the Cyprus problem through the lens of the Annan vote last year, but also from the perspective of three decades of illegal actions on the Turkish side. I would hope that the Bush administration would then conclude that it's in the best interests of our nation to support a united democratic Cyprus, free of any Turkish occupation or any Turkish troops. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again congratulate the Greek people for 184 years of independence, and hope someday soon we can celebrate the independence of the Greek-Cypriots.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush and congressional Republicans have yet to offer a plan that makes Social Security solvent beyond the year 2052. As far as I am concerned, until the Bush administration takes its privatization plan off the table, we cannot work together to address Social Security solvency. Even one of our Republican colleagues, Senator Lindsey Graham, has admitted that privatization is not a plan that will fix Social Security. On Tuesday he said, ``We now have this huge fight over a sideshow. It has always been a sideshow, but we sold it as the main event.'' That is a Republican Senator calling the President's plan a sideshow. Mr. Speaker, it is a sideshow because it does nothing to strengthen Social Security. Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to extend solvency beyond 2052, but we cannot do that until Republicans are serious about extending solvency and rejecting privatization. Democrats want to keep Social Security secure for the future. When that is the Republican goal, we can finally begin to work together in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for placing in order the Pascrell/Menendez/LoBiondo amendment which would protect New Jersey's ability to combat the influence money plays in the contracting process and also to reaffirm States' rights. As far as I am concerned, this is also a States' rights issue and the ability of States to pass legislation that would deal with the corruption issues. I think you should know, Mr. Speaker, that the buzz word in our State these days in New Jersey is ``pay to play.'' Pay to play simply means awarding lucrative government contracts to those who have given large political contributions. Unfortunately, it has become almost a way of life that people get contracts by giving large campaign contributions to politicians. I do not have to tell anyone here why that becomes a problem. It does not basically allow the best contract to go forward, the most efficient, the lowest bid, the one that is in the best interest of the public. It also wastes tax dollars. There have been numerous reports in the media in New Jersey about how tax dollars are wasted essentially when pay to play is in effect because it means that money that could have been perhaps used better for other educational or other government functions is, in effect, wasted in the pay to play process. So what has happened in New Jersey is that New Jersey has been seeking a way to essentially eliminate pay to play. Shortly before his resignation, our former governor Jim McGreevy, issued an executive order banning pay to play and his successor Governor Dick Cody has worked with the legislature to make the ban a permanent law. Again, this would be a vital step towards cleaning up the influence money plays in the contracting process in New Jersey. The problem though is that the rigid contracting rules of the Federal Government are putting a serious crimp on our State's attempts to foster good government. The Federal Highway Administration requires that all contracts go to the lowest bidder, and they have said that the New Jersey pay to play ban would violate that rule. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on the Committee on Rules explained that that is patently absurd. There is no reason why the Federal Government should block a State's ability to combat political influence, in this case, potentially withholding $1 billion in transportation funding that is critical to our Nation's most densely populated State. I have always had an opinion from a State's rights point of view that, if a State wants to go further, in this case, our State trying to go further to eliminate corruption and the potential for political influence, there is no reason why the Federal Government should stand in the way of that. That does not make any sense. I should also tell my colleagues that, before you think that the New Jersey delegation is just doing this as a parochial issue on the highway bill, you should look to your own State. The Highway Administration's rules could potentially block similar efforts pending in Connecticut and could effect existing anti-corruption laws in Kentucky, South Carolina, Ohio and West Virginia. This is not a New Jersey specific problem. This is something that the Highway Administration could potentially block in a number of other States. So I think, for all these reasons, this amendment makes sense. Again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for putting the amendment in order. I want to thank particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for sponsoring this amendment. But I should say, every one of the Members of the New Jersey delegation on a bipartisan basis does support this and is joining us in our effort to preserve States' rights and stand up for good government.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of a dedicated member of my community, Dr. Kenneth L. Saunders, Sr. Next month, Dr. Saunders will be celebrating his 16th pastoral anniversary at the North Stelton A.M.E. Church. He has emerged over the years as a community leader as well as a dedicated member of his congregation. Under his committed administration, the congregation at North Stelton has more than doubled. In addition to serving his community through the church, Dr. Saunders works as State Parole Board Commissioner, Chaplain of the local police department, and New Brunswick Theological Seminary Trustee. He has received numerous accolades including Senatorial commendation, the humanitarian of the year award from the Rutgers University School of Medicine and Dentistry, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. award from the local chapter of the NAACP. Dr. Saunders is also devoted to his family life. He has been married to Sister Shirley Harris Saunders for 25 years and is the proud father of Kenneth L. Saunders, Jr. The efforts of Dr. Saunders in the community and the church have benefited many citizens throughout his career. I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of Dr. Kenneth L. Saunders, Sr., an exemplary citizen that I am proud to represent here in Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as Congress prepares to debate another $80 billion war supplemental next week, I call on my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in including amendments that would finally begin to hold the Bush administration accountable for the billions of dollars of taxpayers' money being sent to Iraq. The $81 billion the administration is now asking for comes on top of an additional $200 billion already spent in Iraq since the beginning of the war 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, it was not supposed to be this way. The Bush administration never leveled with the American people about the type of sacrifices they would have to make in order to fight this war. You will remember that, before the war, President Bush and his war cabinet said the sacrifices would be minimal. In fact, the Bush administration told this very House that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. Two years ago this month, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified before the House Committee on Appropriations on the minimal American funds that would be needed to reconstruct Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Appropriations, and I quote, ``I don't believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. Reconstruction funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things.'' Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration either deceived this Congress and the American people or woefully underestimated the cost of the Iraq war. Either way, Congress should hold them accountable for their mistakes, and that simply is not happening. Congress should also be demanding that Secretary Rumsfeld explain where the $200 billion already appropriated has been spent. Unfortunately, Republicans have abdicated their oversight responsibility and are giving the Bush administration a free ride on the enormous miscalculations we have all witnessed in the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, then Senator Harry Truman created a war investigating committee charged with exposing any fraud or mismanagement in our Nation's war efforts in both the Pacific and the Atlantic. Truman was a Democratic Senator serving in a Democratic Senate majority overseeing the Democratic administration of President Franklin Roosevelt. Truman never worried about the fact he was investigating a president from his own party. He refused to allow politics to get in the way of good government. And, as a result, his investigation saved the American taxpayer more than $15 million. Now, that is a lot of money in 1940, but it is also a lot of money today. I wonder just how much more money we could save the American taxpayers if congressional Republicans took their oversight responsibility for the war seriously? One Republican, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), sees the real need for a committee like the one Senator Truman created more than 60 years ago. He and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) introduced House Resolution 116, which creates a select committee to investigate both the awarding and carrying out of contracts in our continued war efforts in Iraq. For more than a year, I have been strongly advocating for the creation of such an investigative committee, and today, I also became a cosponsor of this legislation that I hope we can include in the Iraq supplemental next week. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress should want to vote for this legislation. After all, one of our main functions in the legislative branch is to oversee exactly where the executive branch is spending funds we appropriate. As Senator Truman demonstrated during World War II, this has absolutely nothing to do with party politics. Instead, it has everything to do with ensuring that the administration is not wasting the American taxpayers' money. I still cannot understand why congressional Republicans, with the one exception of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), are so afraid of overseeing the administration's funding of the war in Iraq. I am hopeful that Republicans will finally remember why they were sent to Washington and join us in creating this investigative committee. It is high time we look at the potential for war profiteering and abuse of these contracts and the money we are spending in Iraq. We need to have oversight. We need to have accountability. It does not matter that there happens to be a war. It does not matter that it happens that we have a Republican president and a Republican Congress. We should all join together on a bipartisan basis to ensure there is accountability for this money before we proceed in spending any more of it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, President Bush has invented an immediate Social Security crisis, but his privatization proposal does nothing to solve his invented crisis. Why would President Bush propose a Social Security privatization plan that leaves the program worse off after he is done with it? Madam Speaker, the President does not want to fix the Social Security program we have had in place for the past 70 years. Instead, he wants to privatize it. He talks about creating an ownership society, but his proposal creates an on-your-own society. Madam Speaker, for 70 years, Social Security has improved the lives of millions of Americans. Without it today, two-thirds of America's seniors would be living in poverty. Social Security gave our parents and grandparents independence. Democrats are willing to work with the President in a bipartisan fashion to address Social Security's future, but we simply refuse to support the President's privatization proposal that dismantles the independence Social Security affords our senior citizens today and our children when they retire in the future. We will work with the Republicans on trying to deal with the Social Security problems that exist in the future, but we cannot support privatization.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans in the Senate yesterday showed that they have no interest in helping millions of working families who clock 40 hours a week at their jobs for the minimum wage. Today, millions of hard-working Americans are working harder for less and less money. Since the minimum wage has not increased in 8 years, these workers' paychecks are simply not increasing as the cost of living increases every year. Because congressional Republicans refuse to act, the real value of the minimum wage is not worth nearly as much as past minimum wages. Consider that if a minimum wage this year provided the same wage to workers today, including cost-of-living adjustments, as it provided to workers in 1968, the minimum wage today would be $8.88 per hour, rather than $5.15 per hour. That is a big difference, and I believe working families living on the minimum wage feel the pinch every day. Raising the minimum wage also raises the wages of all low-income workers, not just those below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, Americans who work 40 hours a week should not be living in poverty. It is time congressional Republicans in both Houses join us in supporting an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, President Bush quickly stopped in on Westfield, New Jersey, to talk to a bunch of his supporters about his Social Security privatization proposal. The Westfield, New Jersey, stop was part of a 6-week push to convince Americans that the Social Security program faces an immediate crisis. The President did not do as well as he wanted, and so now he has hired a couple of public relations experts to run a war room at the Social Security Administration. The administration is also beginning a 60-day push to convince voters that his privatization plan is the best thing for both seniors today and young people tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has failed in convincing Americans that his plan is the way to go because he has even admitted that privatization does nothing to fix the solvency problem Social Security faces in the year 2052. As the President goes around the country pitching his privatization plan, he continues to exaggerate Social Security's current fiscal state. Last Friday in Westfield, he claimed, ``The safety net has a hole in it,'' and he continues to say that the whole system goes broke in 2042. That is simply not true. Based on the most current estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security is fully solvent until 2052, meaning that every benefit that has been promised to seniors, the disabled, and survivors can be paid through that year. Imagine that. There is no other government program that is fully funded for the next 47 years. And President Bush calls this a crisis? The President is also wrong when he says the program goes broke in 2042, because, as I stated, it is not only fully solvent another decade after that, but what exactly happens in 2052? When President Bush says Social Security goes broke, most would believe there is no money left after 2052 in Social Security. After all, if you look at Webster's Dictionary, it defines ``broke'' simply as ``penniless.'' Again, this is another fabrication because even after 2052, the Social Security system would still have enough money to be able to pay out 80 percent of all guaranteed benefits. That does not sound broke to me: 100 percent to 2052, 80 percent after that. How is that a crisis? How is that broke? Again, the President exaggerates the solvency of Social Security. But what has he proposed that will extend that solvency beyond 2052? The answer is, nothing, as of today. Last Friday in New Jersey, the President said, ``We've got to make sure we save the safety net for future generations.'' But even the President has admitted that his privatization plan does nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security. In fact, because the President's plan would take money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for these private accounts, Social Security would actually become insolvent more than 20 years earlier under President Bush's plan. Mr. Speaker, for 70 years, Social Security has improved the lives of millions of Americans. Nearly 47 million people receive Social Security benefits, including more than 32 million retired workers. Of those, two-thirds receive more than half of their retirement income from Social Security, meaning that without the guaranteed benefit of Social Security, more than two-thirds of today's seniors would be living in extreme poverty. Social Security gave our parents and our grandparents independence. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are willing to work with the President in a bipartisan fashion to address Social Security's future, but we simply refuse to support the President's privatization proposal because it dismantles the independent Social Security program. Our seniors now have a guaranteed benefit. They would not have one if we adopt the President's plan. And it does nothing to solve the Social Security solvency problem, again, in 2052. I think our seniors deserve better. We deserve a President that tells us the truth about what is going on. There is no crisis. Let us sit down together on a bipartisan basis and see what we can do to come up with a solution other than privatization.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this Friday, President Bush plans to take his traveling White House to New Jersey in the hope of convincing New Jersey workers to support his Social Security privatization proposal. For 6 weeks, the President has been working to build support for his plan, but it has fallen flat with the American people and it will fall flat also in New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the American people simply do not believe the President wants to strengthen Social Security. President Bush keeps on talking about a crisis, but even he has admitted his own privatization plan does nothing to fix the problem Social Security faces 40 years from now. The problem is that private accounts eliminate the guaranteed benefits of Social Security and leave benefits to the vagaries of the stock market. Since the money is taken out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for private accounts, the shortfall results in benefit cuts to Social Security recipients, and the Federal Government has to borrow more money and go further in debt to try to make up for the shortfall. Last week, I held two Social Security town hall forums in different parts of the State. First, I talked with senior citizens in Smithville, just outside of Atlantic City, and next I visited with more than 70 college students in Brookdale, at Brookdale Community College in Monmouth County. Here too the forum was open to all members of the college's political science and history club. I would assume some of the participants were Republicans, but that does not really matter. The bottom line is that as Members of Congress, Senators, and senior organizations hold forums around the country and explain the President's privatization plan, there is more and more opposition to it. While the President still seems to think his privatization plan is catching on, Congressional Republicans brave enough to have town hall forums heard an earful from supporters of the current Social Security System. Mr. Speaker, let me just give some examples. From the February 23 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer: ``At two stops, morning at Drexel University; afternoon at Widener University, the Pennsylvania Republican Senator Santorum encountered skepticism and hostility as he voiced his support for the White House plan to allow privatization of personal accounts using payroll taxes. He was heckled by protesters, called a liar, and told that his views were unconscionable. Those sentiments ranged across the spectrum.'' That is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. From the February 22 Washington Post: ``At every stop, Representative Paul Ryan faced skeptics. Nancy McDonald, 66, who sells securities and insurance, complained in Darien that health care for the uninsured needs to be addressed before Social Security. `Slow down! Slow down!' She scolded the lawmaker at one point.'' And finally, Mr. Speaker, I take a quote from the February 22 Savannah Morning News. ``At Armstrong Atlantic State University, the subject of Social Security caused a crowd of 200 to become rowdy. Questions were shouted out. The congressman,'' Congressman Kingston, ``was interrupted. And one of Congressman Kingston's assistants was booed when she announced an end to the hour-long discussion.'' These are just examples. In meeting after meeting Republicans got a chilly reception to the President's Social Security plan. Maybe that is why we heard today that Senate majority leader Bill Frist thinks the Senate may not be able to take up the President's Social Security privatization plan until next year. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are concerned about the President's plan. Unfortunately, they will not have the opportunity to voice those concerns to the President this Friday morning in Westfield, New Jersey. But we are going to be heard anyway. I have chartered a bus, and I am taking several dozen of my constituents to join people from all over New Jersey at a rally in support of truly strengthening Social Security. We are going to go with the bus to Westfield, New Jersey, where the President is going to be, and maybe the President will send some of his staffers over so they can really hear from us how their plan is being received outside the White House. It is not being received well, because Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the President's privatization plan is bad for them, bad for Social Security, and bad for America.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this Friday, President Bush plans to take his traveling White House to New Jersey in the hope of convincing New Jersey workers to support his Social Security privatization proposal. I only wish the President would open his event up to New Jerseyans who did not contribute huge amounts to his reelection campaign or who refused to sign a letter saying they are a card-carrying Republican. Maybe then he would hear the public's real concerns about his privatization plan. Mr. Speaker, the American people simply do not believe the President wants to strengthen Social Security. President Bush keeps on talking about a crisis, but he has even admitted that his own privatization plan does nothing to fix the problems Social Security faces 40 years from now. Instead of fixing a future problem, the President's privatization plan actually jeopardizes the future of Social Security by moving insolvency forward from 2052 to 2031, meaning we would face a real crisis much sooner under the President's plan. I welcome the President's visit. For 6 weeks, he has been working to build support for his plan, but it has fallen flat with the American people and it will also fall flat in New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Evans, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, recently when meeting with Armenian Americans during visits in several U.S. cities referenced the Armenian genocide. In a series of public statements, Ambassador Evans who has studied Russian history at Yale and Columbia and Ottoman history at the Kennan Institute stated, ``I will today call it the Armenian Genocide.'' Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Evans' statements did not contradict U.S. policy, but rather articulated the same message that the Bush administration has sent to the public, the only difference in this case is that Ambassador Evans simply assigned the word to the definition that was already provided by President Bush as well as members of his administration. Breaking with a pattern on the part of the State Department of using alternative and evasive terminology for the Armenian genocide, Ambassador Evans pointed out that ``no American official has ever denied it.'' Now, Ambassador Evans was merely recounting the historical record which has been attested to by over 120 Holocaust and genocide scholars from around the world. In so doing, he was merely giving a name, the accurate description of genocide, to this very administration's statements on the issue. President Bush on April 24 of each of the last four years when commemorating the Armenian genocide used the textbook definition of genocide with words and phrases such as ``annihilation'' and ``forced exile and murder.'' Before him, President Reagan used the word ``genocide'' in 1981 when describing the annihilation of over 1.5 million Armenians. In the day of the genocide, our U.S. ambassador, then Henry Morgenthal, had the courage to speak out against the atrocities which he stated were a planned and systematic effort to annihilate an entire race. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my name and my voice to all those who, like Ambassador Evans, know the truth and speak it plainly when discussing the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for all that he does on this trade issue and is constantly being out there pointing out the shortcomings of all these free trade agreements that this administration, the Bush administration, continues to put before the Congress. I have to say, I just do not get it. I do not understand how this administration, the Bush administration, continues to push these free trade agreements when there is absolutely no question in my mind and I think most Americans minds that they have been a failure. Our economy continues to be stagnant. We continue to have plants close. I use in my own district the Frigidaire plant in Edison, the Ford plant in Edison. I could go on and on with the plants that continue to close. We see the continual loss of jobs. We see unemployment at levels that are unacceptable. And there is absolutely no indication that this administration's policy with these continual free trade agreements is accomplishing anything for the people of this country. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) puts up the chart with the overall U.S. trade deficit which continues to grow worse and every day we see the trade deficit getting worse; and yet at the same time we see the administration coming forward with more of these free trade agreements, in this case for Central America. I just have to say I just do not get it. I remember when NAFTA was first proposed going back a few years. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and I were both here at the time, and we at the time said over and over again that NAFTA was not acceptable, it was not going to do anything to improve the job situation and the economy of the United States, and it was not likely to do anything to improve the wages or the job conditions of Mexican workers, and that is still true. Anyone who goes to Mexico knows that it has not improved the standard of living for Mexican workers, and at the same time, it has simply drained away valuable jobs from the United States. This continues to be the case with every one of these agreements. They are not protective of labor and environmental standards. I do not know how many times the administration has come forth and said, well, there is not a problem here because we are going to protect workers in the countries that we would have the free trade agreements with; that we are going to have adequate environmental enforcement. It is simply not true. I just have some information here that was put out relative to the International Labor Organization. It says, without exception, the national labor systems of the Central American countries fail to meet international standards on freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. The ILO, the International Labor Organization, the State Department and independent human rights observers have documented the following examples of the systematic failure to enforce labor laws throughout the Central American region. Four points. First, delays and obstructions are common in Central American labor ministries. Second, labor ministries not only ignore violations, but are, themselves, complicit in violations of the law in most of these Central American countries. Collusion between labor ministry officials and employers to deny workers their right to organize is a problem. Finally, the judicial branch, the courts, are guilty of systematic enforcement failures in Central America. We know that there is not going to be adequate protection with regard to labor in these countries. There is not going to be adequate protection in terms of environmental law and environmental standards, and yet we continue to move forward, and it makes absolutely no sense because the economy is stagnant, the trade deficit gets higher and the labor and environmental laws are not being enforced. So, for the life of me, I do not understand how we continue with these. Again, I have never said that increasing free trade between the United States and other countries is, per se, a bad thing, but this administration has never negotiated, or I should say, rarely has negotiated any trade agreement that is helpful to the United States, and that is what we face here once again. I do not support it. I hope we can get as many people as possible to understand that we cannot continue this downhill trend. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for all that he does on this subject.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join my colleagues last month in commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz. On that solemn occasion, Congress remembered the heroic forces that helped bring an end to this crime against humanity, and we reminded ourselves and others to never forget the lessons of the past. At the request of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia, the United Nations, for the first time, also observed the liberation of Auschwitz. Armenia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vartan Oskanian, was among a select group of foreign ministers who addressed the United Nations 28th Special Session in New York. As a people victimized by genocide under the cover of WWII, all Armenians have a special empathy for the victims, survivors and descendants of the Holocaust. As Minister Oskanian said at the UN General Assembly: ``After Auschwitz, we are all Jews, we are all Gypsies, we are all unfit, deviant and undesirable, for someone, somewhere.'' As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I am pleased to submit the Minister's full remarks as delivered to the Congressional Record. By remembering all instances of man's inhumanity to man, we renew our commitment always to prevent this crime's recurrence, and therefore negate the dictum that history is condemned to repeat itself. Statement of H. E. Vartan Oskanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Republic of Armenia at the 28th Special Session on the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Nazi Concentration Camps--New York, January 24, 2005 Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Dear Friends: On behalf of the people and government of Armenia, and as a descendant of genocide survivors, I feel compelled to be here today, to join other survivors and descendants, of both victims and perpetrators, to take part in this commemoration. I am also duty-bound to urge us all to confront more effectively the threat of genocide anywhere, at any time, regardless of cost and political discomfort. The liberation of Auschwitz is, indeed, cause for commemorative celebration. However, in this commemoration, with each uttering of the name Auschwitz, we are forced to reflect: to look back, look around, look deep, look at the other, but also look inward, at ourselves. After 9/11 and reacting to the unusually high number of victims of a singular event, an editorialist proclaimed ``We are all Americans''. Sympathy, solidarity, anxiety, and indignation bound us together. How much more intense our feelings about Auschwitz and the singularity of its horror, its synonymity with the technology of death-making, its eerily ordinary commitment to efficiency, to pragmatic, effective, result-oriented administration. After Auschwitz, we are all Jews, we are all Gypsies, we are all unfit, deviant and undesirable, for someone, somewhere. After Auschwitz, the conscience of man cannot remain the same. Man's inhumanity to men, to women, to children, and to the elderly, is no longer a concept in search of a name, an image, a description. Auschwitz lends its malefic aura to all the Auschwitzes of history, our collective history, both before and after. In the 20th century alone, with its 15 genocides, the victims have their own names for places of infamy. What the French call `les lieux infames de memoire' are everywhere. Places of horror, slaughter, of massacre, of the indiscriminate killing of all those who have belonged to a segment, a category, an ethnic group, a race or a religion. For Armenians, it is the desert of Deir-EI-Zor, for Cambodians they are the killing fields, for the children of the 21st century, it is Darfur. For the Jews and Poles and for a whole generation of us growing up after The War, it is Auschwitz. Mr. President: Just as we all were, or are, or might be victims, we all were or are or might also be guilty. It is only through the engagement of those who have seen and done the unimaginable, and who have had the dignity, the grace, the sensitivity, the decency and courage to acknowledge wrongdoing, that we may achieve the requisite collective political will and its expression. This is not as naive, unrealistic, idealistic as some might wish to label it, perhaps in order to dismiss it. Genocide is not about individuals who act insanely, do evil, commit crimes, perpetrate irrevocable wrongs. Genocide is the undertaking of a state apparatus, which must, by definition, act coherently, pragmatically, with structure and organization. Thus, this is not a plea to reform human beings, but an appeal to take conscious account of the role our national institutions and international institutions must play to ensure that no one can expect to enjoy impunity. After Auschwitz one would expect that no one any longer has a right to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear. As an Armenian, I know that a blind eye, a deaf ear and a muted tongue perpetuate the wounds. It is a memory of suffering unrelieved by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition. The catharsis that the victims deserve, which societies require in order to heal and move forward together, obligates us here at the UN, and in the international community, to be witness, to call things by their name, to remove the veil of obfuscation, of double standards, of political expediency. Mr. Chairman: Following the Tsunami-provoked disaster, we have become painfully aware of a paradox. On the one hand, multilateral assistance efforts were massive, swift, generous and without discrimination. But, when compared and contrasted with today's other major tragedy, in Africa, it is plain that for Darfur, formal and ritual condemnation has not been followed by any dissuasive action against the perpetrators. The difference with the Tsunami, of course, was that there were no perpetrators. No one wielded the sword, pulled the trigger or pushed the button that released the gas. Recognizing the victims and acknowledging them is also to recognize that there are perpetrators. But this is absolutely not the same as actually naming them, shaming them, dissuading or warning them, isolating or punishing them. If these observations signal a certain naivete that overlooks the enduring structures of our political and security interests, then, on this occasion, when we have gathered to commemorate this horrible event, then allow me this one question: if not here and now, then where and when? Mr. Chairman: The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, who has been quoted here, admonished us to remember the past, or be condemned to repeat it. This admonition has significance for me personally, because the destruction of my people, whose fate in some way impinged upon the fate of the Jews of Europe, should have been viewed more widely as a warning of things to come. Jews and Armenians are linked forever by Hitler. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? said Adolf Hitler, days before he entered Poland. Hitler's cynical remembrance of Armenians is prominently displayed in the Holocaust Memorial in Washington because it is profound commentary about the crucial role of third parties in genocide prevention and remembrance. Genocide is the manifestation of the break in the covenant that governments have with their peoples. Therefore, it is third parties who become crucial actors in genocide prevention, humanitarian assistance and genocide remembrance. We are commemorating today, because the Soviet troops marched into Auschwitz 60 years ago. I am here today because the Arabs provided sanctuary to Armenian deportees 90 years ago. Third parties, indeed, can make the difference between life and death. Their rejection of the behaviors and policies which are neither in anyone's national interest nor in humanity's international interest, is of immense moral and political value. What neighbors, well-wishers, the international community can't accomplish, is the transcending and reconciling which the parties must do for themselves. The victims, first, must exhibit the dignity, capacity and willingness to move on, and the perpetrators, first and last, must summon the deep force of humanity and goodness and must overcome the memory of the inner evil which had already prevailed, and must renounce the deed, its intent, its consequences, its architects and executors. Auschwitz signifies the worst of hate, of indifference, of dehumanization. Remembrance of Auschwitz and its purpose, however abhorrent, is a vital step to making real the phrase ``Never Again.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, February 20, 2005 will mark the 17th anniversary of the modern day liberation movement of the people of the Nagorno Karabakh (NK). Seventeen years ago the people of NK petitioned the Soviet government to correct historical injustices and reunite them with their compatriots in Armenia. The Armenians of NK were placed within the borders of Azerbaijan in 1921, as one of many ethnic groups there were separated by Joseph Stalin through his ``divide and conquer'' strategy. Armenians of NK were subjected to brutal Soviet Azerbaijani rule for 70 years. It is imperative that we recognize the fact that NK's referendum to secede from Azerbaijan in 1988 was pursuant to Soviet law. NK was already operating as an autonomous region and therefore had the right and the power to secede if they chose to. In fact, during the seven decades of Soviet rule, the Armenians of NK repeatedly stated to each successive Soviet regime their desire to be joined again with Armenia. These peaceful and legal maneuvers were met with violent repression and forced settlement of ethnic Azeris into NK. In 1988, when the Armenians of NK heard of the Mikhail Gorbachev's democratization agenda, they began to again move peacefully for reunification with Armenia. At this time, the Soviet and Azeri armies would not stand even to entertain this request and immediately resorted to violence. Public expressions of determination by the Armenians of NK were met with a campaign of ethnic cleansing, deporting the Armenians of NK and Azerbaijan. In 1991, as Armenia and Azerbaijan followed most soviet states in succession from the USSR, NK also voted to succeed. In an internationally monitored referendum, the NK population overwhelmingly voted to establish an independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic, currently known as NKR. Following this referendum in which the country was established, the Azeri army began a full-scale war on the Armenians of NK, which took thousands of lives over 3 years, but eventually ended up with NKR repelling Azeri forces. This victory was gained with an army that was out-manned and out-gunned, but had desire and guile that proved to be overwhelming. This conflict had a terrific human cost, leaving 30,000 dead and over one million displaced. Thankfully, although small skirmishes have broken out from time to time, the peace has been kept since an agreement ceased hostilities in 1994. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly come to the House floor to speak of the plight of the Armenians of NKR. I can now speak from personal experience about NKR, having traveled there. I had the opportunity to travel to NKR to witness the Presidential elections there, where we served as official monitors. I am proud to say that all election observers that participated in this historic event gave an overwhelmingly positive response. One group in particular, headed by the Baroness Cox from England stated that, ``Our overall conclusion is one of congratulations to all the people of Artsakh (NKR) for the spirit in which the elections have been conducted, their commitment to the democratic process and their pride in their progress towards the establishment of civil society.'' This process is astounding considering that NKR is not recognized internationally; that they still must deal every day with Azeri aggression, and that their economy is still devastated from the war. The elections were reported to have met, if not exceeded international standards. All this just 9 short years removed from all-out war. Congress recognized this consistent move towards democracy, granting NKR $20 million in humanitarian assistance in FY `97, an additional $5 million in FY `03 and $3 million just last year. This assistance has not just been crucial for needs of the people of NKR, but has also fostered the beginnings of an excellent relationship between our two countries. Mr. Speaker, I would like to end with a final example of what I saw during my visit to NKR. During the elections, as I visited the capitol city and small villages alike, everyone I spoke to was incredibly excited about the prospect of voting. They viewed the vote not only as a choice of the leader of their country for the next 5 years, but a statewide referendum on the democratic process and independence of NKR. I congratulate the people of NKR for the 17th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Liberation movement and their incredible determination to establish a free and open democratic society.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, President Bush promised that no child would be left behind when he signed education reform legislation into law. But last week the President unveiled a budget with education cuts that breaks his promise to America's children. The President's budget calls for the elimination of 41 education programs. Just some examples: The President eliminates vocational educational grants that help our States teach high school vocational skills to students in the hope that they will use these skills to find jobs. He eliminates educational technology grants to States, despite the fact that studies show technology can substantially raise student achievement. The President's budget eliminates a promotional effort to create ways to best educate disabled students. Mr. Speaker, the President broke his promise to millions of children with this budget. We should reject this budget because of the education cuts alone and live up to our promises to see that no child is left behind.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush submitted his budget to Congress last week, he said it represented his values and his priorities. If that is indeed the case we really should question both. One really has to wonder if this budget document represents his priorities. You will remember 2 weeks ago during his State of the Union address, President Bush spent the majority of that speech talking about his Social Security privatization plan and the continued war in Iraq. Supposedly these were his priorities for the upcoming year. And yet the President did not include the additional $80 billion needed to fund the Iraq war or the trillions that will be needed over the next decade to fund his costly Social Security privatization proposal in his budget. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the President to reverse our Nation's fiscal collapse if he continues to send incomplete budgets to Capitol Hill. The President can say that he is going to cut the Federal deficit in half in several years; but the fact is, that cannot happen if the President does not send us an honest budget. If Social Security and the war in Iraq are the President's priorities, then he should have no problem placing them in his budget and explaining to the American people why these billions of dollars must be used in Iraq and on his Social Security privatization plan. Mr. Speaker, President Bush also said this budget represents a vision of his values. Now, if that is the case, one really has to question the President's dedication to one of government's main rules, helping those less fortunate. Once again, the President's budget helps provide the blueprint for Republicans to help the wealthiest in our Nation become even wealthier. That is to the detriment of middle-class and lower- income Americans who greatly benefit from many of the programs the President now wants to cut or eliminate, and for what, more tax breaks that primarily benefit our Nation's wealthiest 1 percent? The President's budget shows his lack of compassion for programs that benefit my State of New Jersey, our middle- and lower-income families in particular. By drastically cutting housing, education, community policing environmental protection and Medicaid programs, the President is turning his back on middle- and lower-income families in my State of New Jersey. President Bush's budget makes substantial cuts in important education proposals that are important to my State. The budget provides only half of the funding promised for after-school programs. In New Jersey, these cuts will mean nearly 33,000 New Jersey children will no longer have access to critical after-school programs. The President's budget also cuts 440 million in Safe and Drug Free School grants, 500 million in education technology State grants, 325 million for the Even Start Literacy program, and 280 million for the Upward Bound program for inner-city youth. Now, this may sound like a lot of bureaucracy, but these are real education cuts that are going to hurt children. And yet the President has no problem cutting those programs while at the same time continuing his policy of providing large tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Now, these are certainly not my values; I would hope that they were not the President's values. But certainly the budget says the opposite. The President also proposes huge cuts in the Medicaid program. Now, this program serves nearly 930,000 children, seniors and people with disabilities in my State of New Jersey. It is estimated that the $60 billion in cuts that the President is proposing will cut one-fourth of the Medicaid money sent to my State over the next decade. And, Mr. Speaker, New Jersey and other States simply cannot pick up this slack. We have a budget shortfall in New Jersey; we cannot pick up the Medicaid slack. At a time when 45 million Americans are without health care, the President shows absolutely no compassion for the uninsured by proposing these devastating health care cuts. The President also refused to follow through with his promise during last week's State of the Union address, or I should say a couple of weeks ago, when he said he would do everything possible to help our soldiers and veterans recover. Well, if you look at the budget, there is a pitiful half a percent, that is half a percent increase in veterans affairs funding. Now, that is a slap in the face to the millions of men and women who have fought for our country. Congress should not neglect these brave Americans and should instead reject the President's budget proposal when it comes to veterans. Mr. Speaker, finally I just want to say, the President's budget values and priorities are, in my opinion, not in the best interests of America. It is time that congressional Republicans stand up to this President and let him know that his priorities are not the priorities of their constituents, and I know they are not. I hope Congress will reject the President's budget proposal in the upcoming months in favor of one that truly takes the needs of working families into consideration. I think this is a very important issue; and I cannot stress enough, and I speak on behalf of my follow Democrats, in saying that the Bush budget simply cannot be allowed to stand.