Steven Rothman

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, under current Transportation Security Administration restrictions, no general aviation aircraft can fly within 15 miles of the Washington Monument. So why, then, does New York City, the other target of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States, not have the very same safeguard being provided to it by the Transportation Security Administration against general aviation aircraft within 15 miles of New York City? Before I continue, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am not talking about commercial aircraft, the 737s, 767s, and so forth that so many Americans depend on each day for travel into our Nation's major airports. What I am talking about are the smaller private aircraft that primarily operate out of smaller, general aviation airports such as Teterboro Airport in my congressional district in New Jersey. Those airports do not have the same Transportation Security Administration security procedures that the major airports have. While these general aviation aircraft by themselves, because of their size, may not seem to be able to inflict a great deal of damage even if they were diverted into a building, if they were filled with chemical or biological agents they could potentially cause a tragedy greater than the one we had on September 11. The restrictions that I am calling for, which would be the same restrictions that are now in place for Washington, D.C., would keep general aviation aircraft from flying within 15 miles of New York City, the other major target of al Qaeda. That would mean that no general aviation aircraft would be able to fly over Times Square, fly over the Empire State Building, over Giants Stadium in New Jersey, or over the Continental Arena. There would be exemptions provided, and if one was provided to a general aviation aircraft, that aircraft, and by the way, these exemptions are available here in Washington, D.C., it simply requires those general aviation aircraft first to fly into what is called a gateway airport outside of the 15-mile restricted zone. There, the plane, pilot, passengers, and luggage would be inspected by Transportation Security Administration officials before these general aviation aircraft would be allowed to continue on to Teterboro or these other airports within 15 miles of Manhattan, such as JFK or LaGuardia. Again, these same restrictions are now in place for Washington, D.C., but not New York City. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support my call for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and the Bush administration to immediately put into effect these new restrictions and protect the people of the New York metropolitan area, just as they have chosen to protect the people of Washington, D.C. Government's number one responsibility is to protect the people. Security is the reason why general aviation aircraft are restricted in coming into airports within 15 miles of Washington, D.C. My amendment would seek the same restriction for general aviation aircraft which would seek to fly in without first being inspected outside the 15-mile zone flying into New York City. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Chair will rule that this amendment is not in order to be voted on tonight, so I will, for this evening, be withdrawing my amendment. But let it be clear, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to press my case and to press for the Transportation Security Administration and the Bush administration and the Department of Transportation to protect the people of the New York metropolitan area by enacting the same restrictions that they have deemed necessary over Washington, D.C. Point of Order

Mr. ROTHMAN. As the Chair and my distinguished chairman may have heard earlier that I have withdrawn my amendment on the basis that the gentleman may very well be correct on that point of order, and I simply wanted to restate my intention to pursue this issue notwithstanding its order this evening. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns regarding the constant threat to Taiwan from missiles in China, and the signal that this military buildup sends to both the people of China and the people of Taiwan about the eventual peaceful resolution to the Taiwan dispute. Currently, there are more than 400 Chinese missiles targeted on Taiwan, with fifty or more being added each year. Also, China has devised strategies to destroy Taiwan's political, communications, and production centers within days. What is even more menacing is that China has reiterated that it will use force against Taiwan if Taiwan refuses to accept China's ``one country, two systems'' unification formula. I believe that China's intimidation of Taiwan questions its seriousness about being considered a major world power. China must not ignore Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's repeated pleas for resumption of a cross-strait dialogue. If war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, China, Taiwan and the rest of the countries in the Asian Pacific will all suffer irreparable economic and political damage. We in the United States feel most strongly that a military clash in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. I call upon the Chinese government to dismantle the hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan and to embrace peace in managing its relations with Taiwan.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was very disheartened to learn about the failure last week of the United Nations sponsored peace talks regarding a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. It is apparent that while the Greek-Cypriot people and their leaders are ready for a peaceful settlement to this longstanding problem, the Turkish-Cypriot leaders, and possibly the leaders of Turkey as well, are not committed to a peaceful settlement at this time. The commitment of the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to resolving the Cyprus dispute is notable, especially considering the impending crisis in Iraq. Mr. Annan, in good faith, presented a plan to both sides that required concessions from each party. Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, the newly elected President of the Republic of Cyprus, was prepared to submit the United Nations plan to the Greek-Cypriots as a referendum, even though he was required to make unpopular concessions in order to achieve what was believed to be a workable plan. Mr. Rauf Denktash, the leader of the Turkish-Cypriots, on the other hand, refused to submit the United Nations plan to the Turkish-Cypriots as a referendum. This is yet another case of the Greek-Cypriots negotiating in good faith, whereby they continue to demonstrate their dedication and commitment to a peaceful resolution to the division of Cyprus, and Mr. Denktash is not willing to negotiate. In the United States, I believe that we must continue our efforts to improve the dialogue for the reunification of Cyprus. I strongly urge Mr. Denktash, and other Turkish leaders, to view this recent breakdown of talks as a lost opportunity that cannot occur again. I also urge the Administration to pressure Mr. Denktash and other Turkish leaders to re-evaluate their opposition to a unified Cyprus, especially in light of Turkey's desire to become a member of the European Union. Mr. Speaker, the people of Cyprus deserve to have their voices heard about the future of their country and their people, and I sincerely hope that this will happen in the near future.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for our troops and for this resolution. First and foremost my heart and prayers are with the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who right now are engaged in a dangerous, but necessary war to rid the world of an evil dictator who threatens the world with his weapons of mass destruction. Our troops are courageously risking their lives for, not only the freedom and security of the people of the United States, but for the people of Iraq, and the entire world. For 12 years, the United States and United Nations have called on Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. passed 16 resolutions ordering him to do so. He has chosen not to comply. HIs history of using weapons of mass destruction, plus the likelihood that he could give these weapons of mass destruction to his agents in the U.S. or to terrorist organizations to use against Americans at home or abroad make him a clear and present danger to America. The risks of this war are great, but the risks of not going to war to disarm Saddam Hussein now are far greater. With September 11 very much in my mind, I believe that our government must be proactive in protecting our people and our homeland. I am mindful of, and have had extensive discussions with, the many people of good faith in my district who oppose taking action against Saddam Hussein at this point in time. I have great respect for them and for their strongly held views. But I hope that all Americans will join me today in supporting our troops as these brave young Americans place themselves in harm's way on behalf of our nation. I pray for the safety of the brave men and women in our armed forces and for the innocent Iraqi people. I look forward to the elimination of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and to the liberation of the Iraqi people from this murderous, sadistic dictator. May God bless our troops and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss S. 168, the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer of California. The proposal would create commemorative coins to help pay for the restoration of the San Francisco Mint known widely as the ``Old Granite Lady.'' I commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for undertaking this commendable effort. The San Francisco Mint was in service from 1870 to 1937, survived the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and was utilized until a few years ago as federal offices. Today, modern building codes require that it be reinforced before it can safely be used in an area that is still prone to earthquakes. I recently read an article in the February 11, 2003 edition of the Numismatic News, which I ask to be placed in the Congressional Record following my remarks, written by Bergen County Freeholder and my hometown Fair Lawn, New Jersey Mayor David L. Ganz, proposing modifications to S. 168 to further stimulate interest on the issuance of this coin. His proposals are worthy of consideration. Specifically, Mayor Ganz proposes to have commemorative coinage re-issued using historic coin designs that were widely used in the 19th century, are associated with the San Francisco Mint, and which would offer to coin collectors the affordable opportunity to receive proof specimens--a means to boost sales, increase the surcharge that will be used to help restore the Mint, and provide an exciting collector's opportunity as well. For example, coin collectors know the tale of the 1870 three dollar gold piece with the ``S'' for San Francisco Mint mark on the reverse. The coin is unique and was formerly in the Louis Eliasberg collection. It is valued in the millions. There are other proof or uncirculated three dollar gold pieces that are quoted in Numismedia, a coin pricing guide, that sell for thousands of dollars. The 20-cent piece also has a long history associated with the San Francisco Mint, including the 1875-S coin produced more than a century ago. An uncirculated example of this coin would cost hundreds of dollars. The same is true for the Liberty head nickel and the Barber dime--where the 1894-S, one of only 24 specimens known, is a six-figure rarity and a regular design is hundreds of dollars in pristine, uncirculated condition. Mr. Ganz calls for special collector coins not intended for circulation, but bearing original designs of a century ago utilizing a contemporary date. They would be produced in proof, as uncirculated pieces, and offered to collectors with a modest surcharge that could raise $123 million, if the coins sold out, to help restore the Old Granite Lady. Mr. Ganz's comments merit consideration for many reasons, not the least of which is that he is a respected numismatist. A former member of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, he is one of the people credited by former Mint director Philip Diehl as being the source and inspiration for America's state quarters--which have given $5 billion back to the American taxpayer. I have known Mayor Ganz for many years and believe that his ideas merit consideration, and I hope that they may be incorporated into this meritorious effort to restore the San Francisco Mint. [From the Numismatic News, Feb. 11, 2003] San Francisco $3 Would Sell Better Than $5 (By David L. Ganz) True to her word, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for herself and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced S. 168 on Jan. 15, a bill entitled the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act,'' which is a traditional revenue- raising measure containing a silver dollar and a half eagle ($5) gold piece. Like many dozens of other bills proposed over the course of the last decade that have been designed to raise funds for a noble purpose, it follows a template that has been approved by the Treasury, the Mint, Congress itself, and even the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. That means that the coins are legal tender; have moderately low mintages of 100,000 for the gold coins and 500,000 for the silver--sales for which will never be achieved--and surcharges designed to raise in the aggregate $3.5 million if the gold coins sold out, and another $5 million if the silver dollar version hit it big, for a possible total of $8.5 million. Unfortunately, it will do neither and will most likely have disappointing sales in the 25,000-50,000 coin range for gold and in the 100,000-250,000 range for the silver dollar, from which the Mint will take expenses, leaving the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society a giant goose egg to help pay for the restoration of the Old Granite Lady. Mint accounting is not for knaves. Neither is it in accordance with what most would refer to as generally accepted accounting principles. The result is that an exorbitant amount of overhead is charged against commemorative coin production--it's a legitimate way to look at it, but on a per-coin basis adds absurd amounts to cost that would otherwise never be tolerated for purposes of analysis or compensation. One need only look at several recent commemorative results and fork-overs to see just how difficult the present system is. That's problematical where, as here, the goal is to raise funds to help restore the San Francisco Mint to the grandeur of yesteryear, when it was the proudest building in the old financial district of the downtown. Just by simple example, on the population Buffalo nickel silver dollar commemorative for the Smithsonian, budget documents submitted show an initial $3 million loss. Congress authorized 500,000 of those coins--and they sold out in two weeks--yet in the budget scoring of Jan. 25, 2001 (before sales began), the outflow was $3 million down. (There would eventually be $13.9 million in gross sales registered in the fourth quarter of 2001.) The San Francisco ``S'' mintmark has had a special allure for more than 130 years. To those who were collecting coins earlier than 1955, when production was suspended, the ``S'' mintmarked coins traditionally had lower and hence scarcer mintages--and higher values. The Old Granite Lady, which functioned from 1870 to 1937-- and made it through the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 virtually unscathed--has a long history involving coinage, which the legislation that Sen. Feinstein introduced recites at least in part. ``The San Francisco Old Mint is famous for many rare, legendary issues, such as the 1870-S $3 coin, which is valued today at well over $1 million,'' the precatory portion of the bill begins--and then goes nowhere else. Commemorative coinage should serve a purpose, none of which is essentially important for funding, all of which is integral to the integrity of the coinage process, the history of American money and telling the story of American numismatics in its larger sense. There's nothing magical about the template that is being utilized right now to create commemorative coinage. In an earlier time in its 1980s, a different model was utilized-- and I participated quite actively in seeing to it that that model was not only broken, but for purpose. Significantly, I suggested it should be done again. In 1982, modern commemorative coin issues began anew with the introduction of a silver commemorative for the 250th anniversary of George Washington's birth. There was no surcharge; there was no beneficiary. The coin was produced, it was sold and there as great success: 2.2 million uncirculated pieces were manufactured and 4.8 million proofs. The Olympic program came and went, but in 1984-1985, the Statute of Liberty centennial commission had its chance, and I had the opportunity to consult with them. Lee Iacocca, that colorful personality who was then the chairman of Chrysler corporation headed the commission. Dr. Stephen Brigandi was the executive director. The mold in those days was a dollar coin or two, plus a gold piece. The Olympics used a $10 gold peace to disastrous results, in part because it contained nearly a half ounce of gold (resulting in too high an issue price) and also because when enough coins weren't sold, the Mint produced more, adding mintmarks as the distinguishing factor. Two suggestions came from me: first, change the denomination of the gold coin to a $5 gold piece--to lower the price substantially--and second, introduce a copper- nickel half dollar that could be produced as a circulating commemorative coin with an uncirculated and proof counterpart sold at a very modest mark-up to collectors. They didn't buy into the circulating commemorative concept--it took a dozen more years before the state quarter program that I similarly proposed became reality--but whether to go with a copper nickel low-value, low-cost coin came down to a question of how many might be sold, and what the proceeds would be from the surcharge. After all, the Statue of Liberty needed to be refurbished for its centennial. I made a bet with Brigandi--$100 as I recall it, though that's a lot for a guy who usually bets a cent or a nickel-- and I predicted that such a coin would sell into the millions and be a true partner and participant in a three-coin program. Ultimately, it became the most successful non-circulating legal tender coin in history, with more than 900,000 struck in uncirculated and over 6.9 million as proofs. No other coin, before or since, has come close. Here's why: it was a different coin, different denomination, unusual, modest in price and distinctive. Collectors were encouraged to buy into a concept that played right into what they do: collect. Those of us who are even casual about our hobby know that we collect after a particular fashion. Some will try to obtain all silver dollars, others all issues. Still others go for a type set. But when it comes to new and unusual or even different, it affords a rare opportunity, which is something that I think S. 168 simply misses. It's not too late to change it; the bill has merely been introduced and is months away from action in the Senate, no less the House of Representatives. Here's what I would do to change the focus of the bill, and to simultaneously increase its chance for economic and commercial success--and at the same time, offer a boost to several different areas of the hobby. Capitalize on the history of the Mint and the coins that have come from it. One obvious way of doing that is to create a new $3 gold piece--a play on the 1870-S that is unique (formerly in the Eliasberg collection)--which was produced in the very year that the Old Granite Lady opened for business. To buy any $3 gold piece today, be prepared to plunk down thousands of dollars for an uncirculated specimen, and multiples of that for a proof. For the Mint to begin a new commemorative series--or even a single one-year San Francisco Mint coin in that denomination--would be a boost to the secondary market, a promotion for $3 gold pieces of other dates and denominations, and produce the possibility of a sellout success at levels far above 100,000 pieces. Where a half eagle or $5 gold piece contains .2420 troy ounces of gold, the $3 gold pieces of regulation weight is .1452 troy ounces. At $360 an ounce (more or less current prices), the hard cost changes from $87 in gold to $52.27. Lower the gold content, lower the price. The surcharge doesn't have to change. What does change is the number of people making a purchase. That should go way up--just as it did for the Statute of Liberty half dollar. Net result: more surcharge for the Old Granite Lady's restoration. On the same basis, I'd probably think about adding a minor coin--such as the nickel--or a subsidiary coin such as the dime to the mix. There's a long history there, too, for each. The first ``S'' mint on a nickel was 1912. The ``S'' dime could be the 1894-S Barber design--a powerbroker concept. But what is key is that it is different, unusual and likely to have high sales--even with a surcharge--if the price is simply not made obscene. A third (or fourth) choice: a 20-cent piece (the 1875-S was struck there, of course)--and for all of the same reasoning. Add these and watch orders and dollars come flying in. Prediction if authorities follow my suggestions: a sellout. Here's how to do it: substitute language for the existing bill in the Senate, or introduce a new one in the House, and go to town for the benefit of the Old Granite Lady--and give the San Francisco Mint a new historic life on the centennial of its survival of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. 108th Congress, 1st Session

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of 10-year-old Whitney Weldon of Westfield, New Jersey. Whitney is a wonderful, happy, and active child who was diagnosed in April 2001 with a disease called Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP). FOP is a rare genetic disorder in which bone forms in muscles, tendons, ligaments and other connective tissues forming a second skeleton that immobilizes the joints of the body. With so few people afflicted by the disease, there is little attention being paid to this illness. For the past fifteen months, Gary Whyte, of Mountainside, New Jersey, has been going non-stop, doing everything he can, to raise awareness and help spread news about FOP through countless efforts speaking before clubs, churches, synagogues and organizations and hosting events to raise money for the Weldon FOP Research Fund. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on behalf of Whitney Weldon and the 200 other Americans suffering from FOP to praise the efforts of these dedicated people who are staging a campaign to increase awareness of and find a cure for a disease that few people know about. Gary has shown that education about FOP is the first step toward working to get a cure. Little by little, with more awareness comes more action.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer my strong support for the resolution. As they have been since Saturday, my prayers and thoughts are with the families and friends of the seven space shuttle Columbia astronauts who lost their lives. Our Nation mourns with them and the people of Israel and India who each lost a native hero in this terrible disaster. The tragedy that has befallen our Nation touches each and every American deeply and personally. Throughout our modern history, the NASA program and the astronauts who have courageously committed their lives to space exploration have represented the hope and promise of the future. In an endless universe with so many unknowns, these brave men and women are the ones who set out to find the answers that further the understanding of our existence and provide the keys to the technology of the future. When that promise of our future is suddenly struck with great tragedy, we feel an emptiness deep within us. While we mourn, we must remember that space travel must go on and that we must continue to explore space in order to advance the causes and abilities of humankind. As a Congressman, I have had the honor of personally getting to know a number of our NASA astronauts, having brought them to speak to students at several Bergen and Hudson County elementary and middle schools. As the astronauts made their presentations and discussed their experiences, I saw the eyes of the children light up with wonder, amazement, and admiration. Our astronauts, who are some of the brightest people on our planet, are heroes and as inspiration to all of us, and in particular to our children, who see the hope of a better tomorrow for themselves through the eyes of our space explorers. As we try to find the answers behind this disaster, all Americans must unite and draw strength from one another in order to heal and move forward. May God bless our heroes who were lost as well as their families and loved ones, and may God bless America.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary man and a great friend of mine--Albert Burstein, who turns 80 years-old on November 22. Whether it is through his work as partner of his own law firm, his efforts throughout his 10 years as a member of the New Jersey General Assembly to improve our education system and our quality of life as a whole, his many roles in special posts and appointments throughout New Jersey aimed at raising our levels of education and making our society more just, or in his role as the loving husband of Ruth and father of three terrific children, Jeffrey, Diane, and Laura, Al Burstein is a man of great principle. He represents the best of New Jersey and deserves our highest level of praise. I have had the wonderful opportunity to get to know Al Burstein very well. I first met him after graduating from law school and serving as the campaign coordinator in his race for the New Jersey General Assembly. In between stuffing envelopes, running phone banks, and helping with general campaign tasks, I got to see a man of the highest integrity in action working to make New Jersey a better place. In 1978, Al Burstein ran for the Ninth Congressional District of New Jersey, the seat which I now hold. Although he was not elected, Al Burstein always took the high road in the campaign and never lost focus of his goal of improving the lives of New Jersey residents. I have great and abiding affection and respect for Al Burstein and I wish him the very best as he celebrates his 80th birthday later this month. I know that I join with his family and his many friends and coworkers in wishing him a year filled with happiness, good health, joyful moments, and time for reflection on all of his life's great accomplishments.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are reeling from the downturn in the economy and are struggling to acquire the capital needed to establish or expand their businesses. These same small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and provide much of the innovation and inventions of new concepts and products that large corporations are unable to develop. The Small Business Administration plays an important role in supporting and assisting small businesses in our country by offering a variety of loan programs, as well as counseling and training for all types of firms. The Small Business Administration and its affiliates, including Certified Development Company, not to mention small businesses in general, have been struggling in recent years with user fees on loan programs and decreased assistance from Congress. Specifically, the Administration and the Office of Management and Budget have been miscalculating the anticipated cost of loan programs to the taxpayer, or the subsidy rates for loan programs. The Administration's subsidy rate estimates for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program and the 504 guaranteed loan program have regularly been miscalculated, leading to unnecessarily high fees charged to the borrowers who use the Small Business Administration's loan programs. This is, in effect, a tax on small businesses, and must be rectified. The Administration and the Office of Management and Budget must re- estimate the subsidy rate calculations to ensure that the 7(a) loan program as well as the 504 guaranteed loan program are not threatened, and to reduce the tax burden on our nation's small businesses.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as leaders and people on Taiwan celebrate their 91st National Day on October 10, 2002, I offer them my congratulations and wish them many more happy National Days in the future. Much has been said about Taiwan's political achievements. It has a former political dissident as its tenth president, and people of Taiwan enjoy numerous political freedoms and protection of human rights. As political reforms are continuing, Taiwan will soon complete its total democratization. In terms of economic achievements, Taiwan is one of the world's major economies. Our trade with Taiwan totaled $51.5 billion in 2001. We exported electrical machinery, optical instruments and parts, aircrafts, aircraft parts, organic chemicals, corn, and soybeans to Taiwan. Taiwan represents the 7th largest market for U.S. exports worldwide. In other non-economic areas, I believe we must continue to supply Taiwan with defensive arms--to help Taiwan maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait. Also, the U.S. must take an active role in helping Taiwan join many important international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The U.S. is also grateful for Taiwan's assistance in the fight against global terrorism. Immediately after September 11, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian lost no time in condemning the brutal act against American civilians and offered resolute support of America's anti-terrorism campaign. Taiwan has also taken concrete actions. For instance, Taiwan has shared intelligence information with the United States, security at Taiwan airports has been heightened, legislative bills have been passed to stop money laundering which could aid terrorists, and humanitarian assistance has been provided to Afghan refugees. We appreciate Taiwan's help in combating global terrorism. Again, congratulations to our good friends on Taiwan on their National Day.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America's view of the world changed. On that day, many Americans learned, for the first time, that there were people in the world who hated America so much that they would cross the oceans to come here to kill thousands of American men, women, and children, even if it meant they would die themselves. In considering the resolution before us, I have weighed all of the pros and cons, all the risks of action and the risks of inaction, with September 11 very much in my mind. I believe that any close question on matters of national security must now be resolved in favor of erring on the side of being proactive and not reactive in protecting our people and our homeland. I have spent a tremendous amount of time and study over the past several months on what to do about Saddam Hussein. I have engaged in dialogue with many of my constituents, spoken with experts on every side of this issue, and read literally thousands of pages of analysis. I can delineate as well as any opponent of this resolution all of the possible and considerable risks associated with military action against Saddam Hussein. However, in the end, I conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that America must join forces with our allies, hopefully under the express authorization of the United Nations, but that we must take action to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction against us. Now, especially in the light and shadow of September 11, there is a new immediacy and power to Saddam Hussein's long-standing and often- stated threats against America. For years, Saddam Hussein has been a well-known patron and financier of some of the world's most lethal anti-American terrorists and terrorist organizations. Now, al Qaeda has joined them. After being driven from Afghanistan, al Qaeda has now sought and received safe haven from Saddam Hussein. Saddam is now training al Qaeda in bomb- making and the manufacture and delivery of poisonous and deadly gases. We know that for years al Qaeda has been trying to get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to use against America and Americans. The thought of Saddam Hussein now infecting willing al Qaeda ``martyrs'' with his smallpox virus and sending them into America's major cities, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to die of smallpox, is truly terrifying. The thought of Saddam Hussein sending these same al Qaeda martyrs to America to spray chemical or biological poisons over America's reservoirs or in our most populated cities is a thought so horrifying, yet so real a possibility, that I cannot, in good conscience, especially after the surprise attack of September 11, permit this to happen. I, therefore, endorse this resolution. I do so, however, with a heavy heart. I do so yet with no reasonable doubt that preventing Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction against us is necessary now if we are to avoid another 9-11 or worse. Mr. Speaker, I pray that military action is not necessary and that alone, passage of this resolution will result in Saddam Hussein's compliance with all existing U.N. resolutions to disarm and to permit unconditional inspections. But in the end, that is Saddam Hussein's choice. Mr. Speaker, as we pass this resolution, let us pray for the safety of all Americans, including the brave men and women in our military, law enforcement, and all other branches of our government who are today protecting us here at home and in countries around the world and who will be called upon to do so tomorrow or in the days ahead. God bless them and God bless America.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has spent his entire career dedicated to improving the education of our children, particularly those in New Jersey. As a key figure at the New Jersey Education Association, Mr. John J. Biondi demonstrated the type of leadership this country needs to advance its educational system so that students receive the education they deserve and need to compete in the twenty-first century global economy. Born and raised in New Jersey, Mr. Biondi is a product of the Garden State's school system, where as a teacher he became a part of the school system as well. For 31 years, Mr. Biondi has served as a member of the New Jersey Education Association where his colleagues described him in every positive way possible. Whether it was from the integrity and responsibility he brought to the job each and everyday or his resourcefulness and creativity that helped him meet the changing needs of his organization, John Biondi's presence at the New Jersey Education Association, helped lead that group forward as it advanced its goals of improving the education system throughout the state. This month, John Biondi is retiring from the New Jersey Education Association. In honor of his outstanding efforts, the Educational Community of Bergen County has proclaimed the Twenty-Ninth of September to be ``John Biondi Day.'' I join my friends in the education community in saluting this incredible man whose commitment to an improved education system has proved invaluable for countless New Jersey students.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we come here today, as one community, to reflect on the events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible day, a group of evil men murdered more than 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children—here on American soil—as their co- conspirators attempted to kill thousands more. Today, we still mourn the loss of our fellow citizens: those trying to reach safety and those who deliberately placed themselves in harms way (who saved literally tens of thousands of their fellow Americans in the process). We will also never forget those who were injured and who are still suffering from the wounds, physical and emotional, that were inflicted upon them. We will never forget the heroism and sacrifice of those—many of whom are with us today—who responded immediately and selflessly, who prevented a terrible ordeal from being even worse. While we will always continue to remember what happened, we must also continue our nation's effort to bring to justice and punish those who perpetrated these terrible acts and those who are planning new ones. Government's first priority is, after all, to protect the people, and as your representative in Congress, I assure you that Congress is working to see that our government meets our country's needs for our homeland security and for our national defense: from strengthening our borders, to improving law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, to ensuring that our military is fighting with superior forces and weapons. We never forget that we Americans depend on our government to protect us. We are forever grateful to the men and women in law enforcement and in our armed forces, here and around the world, who put their lives at risk so that we may keep our country and her people safe and free. Is America a perfect nation? Are we as individuals perfect people? No, America is not perfect, and none of us has ever met a perfect person. But what we have in America is the greatest nation the world has ever known—a country committed to freedom, democracy, and equal justice under the law. An imperfect country, but one whose principles of freedom of speech and expression allow us and even demand us to continually seek to make our nation more perfect in its realization of our founding principles. We are still the shining beacon of hope and liberty for every nation in the world and every man, woman, and child on this planet. Finally, we must always remember that in our 226 year history, America has prevailed over many more powerful enemies than the ones we face today. It took the lives and sacrifices of countless numbers of Americans. It took money. It took time. It took patience. And it took perseverance. But we prevailed. Make no mistake about it, my fellow Americans, America will prevail again today. God bless you, my friends, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most challenging issues facing the United Nations General Assembly this fall is representation of Taiwan in the United Nations. U.N. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) of October 25, 1971, which seated the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, did not properly address the Taiwan issue. Recently, China has indicated its willingness to allow Taiwan to join the United Nations but only if Taiwan acknowledges the ``one-China'' policy. Since the U.N. Resolution in 1971, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to join the most powerful and influential group of nations in the world, the United Nations, and this has caused harm for the people of Taiwan. They have been denied the right to be a part of U.N. work and activities. For example, while Taiwan is willing and able to contribute its resources to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, Taiwan has been denied the chance to participate in U.N. sponsored HIV/AIDS conferences and other similar health organization gatherings. Taiwan has also been denied access to major international conferences such as the development conference held in Monterrey, Mexico in March 2002, and the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Children in May 2002. In truth, Taiwan's exclusion from the U.N. raises serious concerns about the rights of the Taiwanese people under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other international human rights provisions. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to speak out in support of Taiwan. Taiwan is a sovereign state and conducts full diplomatic relations with 27 member states of the United Nations. Moreover, Taiwan has membership in a number of major international organizations, including the World Trade Organization. Taiwan should be recognized for what it is--a nation that shares democratic values with the United States and a nation that deserves active participation in the United Nations.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because the phrase ``under God,'' combined with daily recitation of the Pledge, violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. Following their victory, the plaintiffs vowed to challenge the motto, ``In God We Trust,'' which appears on American currency. Fair Lawn, New Jersey Mayor and numismatic expert David L. Ganz recently published an article in the Numismatic News that analyzes why ``In God We Trust'' was chosen as the national motto, and why it should remain on our currency. With the chair's permission, I would like to submit this article, entitled ``In God We Trust Threatened by Pledge Suit,'' for the Record. I also urge the members of this body to support the current Pledge of Allegiance and the continued use of ``In God We Trust'' on our nation's currency. [From the Numismatic News, July 16, 2002] `In God We Trust' Threatened by Pledge Suit--Under the Glass (By David L. Ganz) Front-page news and accompanying legislative denunciations have greeted the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the nation, ``under God,'' indivisible, in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The successful plaintiffs have separately pledged to initiate an attack on the national motto, ``In God we Trust'' to remove it from U.S. currency. Although the motto has been attacked several times in other appellate courts--the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on it--there is some question as to what success this might have, and the consequences to coin and paper money design. Involved is the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 00-16423 (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), which was decided by the appellate court that covers California and much of the American West, comprising 20 percent of the nation's population and about a third of its area and natural resources. Newdow, an avowed athiest, brought the suit because his young daughter attends a public elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. In accordance with state law and a school district rule, teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Young Miss Newdow is not required to say the pledge; that was decided some 60 years ago when the case of West Virginia v. Barnette, a 1943 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited compulsory flag salutes. Her father's objection was that she was intimidated by listening to it, at all. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge in Public Law 642 as ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' (The codification is found in 36 U.S.C. Sec. 1972.) A dozen years later, on June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words ``under God'' after the word ``Nation'' (Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (``1954 Act'')). The Pledge is currently codified as ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'' (4 U.S.C. Sec. 4 (1998)). The following year, 1955, largely at the instigation of Matt Rothert, later president of the American Numismatic Association, Congress amended the U.S. Code to require the national motto to be placed on all coins and currency. (Earlier, Congress took action to place the motto on the two- cent piece (1864), and on some gold coins (1908)). There is some utility in reviewing what the Pledge of Allegiance is, and for that matter, the history of the national motto, ``In God we Trust,'' where the ``we'' is not capitalized and all other letters are. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister with socialist leanings, wrote the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance Sept. 8, 1892, for a popular family magazine, The Youth's Companion, a Reader's Digest-like periodical of the era. The original pledge language was ``I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' A generation later, in 1923 the pledge was adopted by the first National Flag Conference in Washington, where some participants expressed concerns that use of the words ``my flag'' might create confusion for immigrants, still thinking of their home countries. So the wording was changed to ``the Flag of the United States of America.'' In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus added the words, ``under God,'' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of ``In God we Trust'' mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, ``In God we Trust'' became the national motto of the United States. Several courts have been asked to construe whether or not the motto was unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution--freedom of religion arguments being raised. In a 10th circuit Court of Appeals case arising in Colorado, Gaylor v. US, 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996), the Court quoted a number of Supreme Court precedents and concluded that, ``The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of `ceremonial deism' which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief.'' As neat a package as that creates for concluding the controversy, that is simply not the history of the motto ``In God we Trust'' or how it found its way onto American coinage. That story goes back to the bleak days of the Civil War, when the nation's constitutional mettle was being tested on the battlefields that left hundreds of thousands of Americans dead. From the records of the Treasury Department, it appears that the first suggestion of the recognition of the deity on the coins of the United States was contained in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. S.P. Chase, by the Rev. M.R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel, Ridleyville, Pa., under date of Nov. 13, 1861. ``One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked, I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form in our coins,'' Watkinson wrote to Secretary Chase. ``You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words `perpetual union'; within this ring the all-seeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words `God, liberty, law.' ``This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizens could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. ``From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters. To you first I address a subject that must be agitated,'' he concluded. A week later, on Nov. 20, 1861, Chase wrote to James Pollock, the director of the Mint, ``No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.'' He concluded with a mandate: ``You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and terset words possible this national recognition.'' In December 1863, the director of the Mint submitted to the secretary of the Treasury for approval designs for new one-, two- and three-cent pieces, on which it was proposed that one of the following mottoes should appear: ``Our country; our God''; ``God, our Trust.'' (Patterns for the two-cent pieces of this are found in Pollack 370-383.) Dec. 9, 1863, saw this reply from Chase: ``I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word `Our' so as to read: `Our God and our country.' And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: `In God we trust.' '' The Act of April 22, 1864, created the two-cent piece and Secretary Chase exercised his rights to make sure the motto was in the design. By 1866 it had been added to the gold $5, $10 and $20, and the silver dollar, half dollar, quarter and nickel. As Augustus Saint-Gaudens designed the new gold coinage of 1907 at the instigation of his friend President Theodore Roosevelt, the motto was removed for the reason that ``Teddy'' thought it blasphemous. Congress responded by legislatively directing its continuation. Where all this leads in the 21st century remains an unknown--but an interesting hypothesis can be derived. The 9th Circuit's ``Pledge of Allegiance'' case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and likely as not, the ``In God we Trust'' elimination suit will progress in the U.S. district court. As Justice William O. Douglas noted in a concurring opinion in the 1962 Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), ``Our Crier has from the beginning announced the convening of the Court and then added `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' That utterance is a supplication, a prayer in which we, the judges, are free to join.'' Justice Douglas, one of the most liberal in first amendment views, saw little the matter with it. Indeed, he said, ``What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what each House of Congress does at the opening of each day's business.'' The 9th Circuit, by contrast, says ``The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers `that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.' '' An earlier 9th Circuit case in 1970 which dealt with a direct attack on the motto on the coinage was briefly discussed in a footnote of the lengthy opinion. ``In Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970), this court, without reaching the question of standing, upheld the inscription of the phrase `In God We Trust' on our coins and currency. But cf. Wooley v. Maryland, 430 U.S. 705, 722 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (stating that the majority's holding leads logically to the conclusion that `In God We Trust' is an unconstitutional affirmation of belief).'' Nothwithstanding Justice Rehnquist's dissent, a more contemporary analysis of his views are more apparent in later cases since his becoming Chief Justice, and they suggest strongly that he has no issue with the pledge or the national motto on coinage. Most likely, the next several months will see a hardening of positions and a wending process in which the lawsuit, and appeals, move toward highest court resolution. That could come in 2003 or 2004, in time for it to have impact on the next presidential election. For now, until a stay is issued, the pledge is out in California and the 9th Circuit; God remains on our coinage, so long as we trust.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake about what this debate is all about. It is about privatization, not about whether we should save taxpayers' money. Did you know that today, any Federal manager who wants to outsource or privatize any or all of his or her Federal workforce's jobs can do so? Today they can outsource or privatize any or all of their work if they can demonstrate it saves taxpayers' money. So why has the Bush administration and so many of my Republican colleagues said we need a quota where by the end of fiscal year 2003, 85,000 Federal jobs must be privatized when they can do so now if the managers feel it is important and will save taxpayers' money? Why do they want that privatization quota? Because my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, most of them, and this President, believe in privatization. That is why they still want to privatize Social Security. That is why when we talked about prescription drugs for seniors, Democrats said put it under Medicare where it will be safe and all seniors can get it. My Republican friends said, no, prescription drugs for seniors, give it to private insurance companies to manage. Privatize it, just like the Medigap coverage. They believe in privatization. They hate big government. That is why they wanted to privatize Social Security, that is why they voted against Medicare when it first came up, and they want to do this now with prescription drugs and these employees. Support the Moran amendment, and let competition be the rule of the day, not quotas and privatization.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the distinguished and honorable gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for all their work in crafting a bill that deserves all of our support. I am proud to serve with them on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, and I thank them for their leadership. I come here this evening, however, to wholeheartedly support and endorse, and I ask my colleagues to support, the Goss amendment. In my opinion, the United States should not lift the travel ban to Cuba until several important conditions are met. Foremost on this list of conditions is the requirement that Cuba return convicted American fugitives now living in Cuba who have been given sanctuary in Cuba by the Castro government. My passion for this particular condition is rooted in the 74 cases of American fugitives from justice now living under Castro's protection in Cuba. Let me tell my colleagues about one of these fugitives from American justice. Joanne Chesimard, a convicted cop killer. On May 2, 1973, New Jersey State Troopers Werner Foerster and James Harper pulled over Joanne Chesimard and two of her companions in a routine traffic stop. A shoot-out began and Trooper Foerster, who had served on the force for less than 3 years, was shot and killed. Trooper Harper was wounded. A jury here in the United States of America, a jury found that Trooper Foerster had been shot in the back of his head, execution style, at point-blank range. The jury convicted Joanne Chesimard of murder and sentenced her to life in prison. But she escaped in 1979 with the help of four accomplices when they took a prison guard hostage, a prison van was driven, and she was permitted to escape. She lived underground in America for 4 years until she found sanctuary in Castro's Cuba where she lives today, free, enjoying the protection of the Castro government. In addition to Joanne Chesimard, a convicted U.S. cop killer living in Castro's Cuba under his protection today, there are 73 other fugitives living under Castro's protection in Cuba, including Victor Manuel Gerena, an armed robber and a member of a terrorist group who has carried out bombings of U.S. military and civilian targets and is a member of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List, as well as Michael Robert Finney and Charles Hill, who are wanted for the murder of New Mexico State Police Officer Robert Rosenblum. Mr. Chairman, the United States of America should not allow Fidel Castro, Cuba's dictator for the last 43 years, to enjoy the financial benefits of America's tourism until he returns Joanne Chesimard, the convicted cop killer, and until he returns the other 73 fugitives from American justice. It is only fair, it is only right. What do we say to the widow of Werner Foerster and his child? What do we say to all of the other victims of terror, American victims of terror and their children and their relatives if we do not seek justice for the fugitives given sanctuary by Castro today in Cuba? If we simply remove the travel ban without any regard to these fugitives now under Castro's control, we say to any terrorist who would kill a United States trooper, State trooper or any other first responder, we would say to those terrorists, those murderers, it is okay, you can escape American justice, even if you are caught and convicted by a U.S. jury, if you can escape to Cuba. That is wrong, I say to my colleagues. We should not allow travel to Cuba until Castro returns the 74 fugitives from American justice. Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would do what the gentleman suggests, but I am not going to before that allow Castro to have the benefits of tourism from the United States until he returns these cop-killers and 74 fugitives back to the United States.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the 28th Anniversary of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus and to commemorate this tragedy for the Greek Cypriot people. It was over a quarter of a century ago that Turkey illegally invaded the island of Cyprus and created one of the most militarized zones in the world on one-third of the island. This invasion resulted in the death of 5,000 Greek Cypriots, and in the expulsion of 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. More than 1,400 people have been missing and unaccounted for since the invasion, including Americans of Cypriot descent. Today, we moum the deaths of these innocent people and condemn the 28 year occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. While we honor those who lost their lives in this tragedy, we also must look to the future when the Turkish military forces will withdraw completely and unconditionally from Cyprus, and a bi-zonal and bi- communal republic with respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity can be established. This year marked a turning point in the quest for the independence of Cyprus when both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leadership began direct talks. It is my sincere hope that the division of Cyprus will be rectified by these leaders in the near future. Nevertheless, it is the obligation of the U.S. Congress to renounce the violence that separated the island nation of Cyprus, and to affirm that the reunification of the island nation is a priority for this Congress and the international community. On this anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, we mourn the losses of the past 28 years, and we continue to encourage the restoration of fundamental freedoms to the people of Cyprus.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with my colleagues that just like all of our families, we try not to spend more than we take in. I do not think, though, that for most Americans, given the fact that we are now going through a very important, dangerous, and necessary war on terrorism that we ought to give up the war on terrorism because it is going to cost us some money in the short term, and we have to spend what it takes to protect our homeland and to bring to justice or bring justice to those who have attacked us. Nor do I think we can do much, although we are trying, in terms of corporate accountability, to deal with our coming out of this recession or our lack of confidence in the markets. But we do have another tool at our disposal to eliminate perhaps as much as 45 percent of the financial hole this Congress, or the majority, has created over the next 10 years; a financial hole created by the majority in this Congress of about $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. I am speaking of the tax cut that the Republican Party and a handful of Democrats, but most of the Members of the Republican Party, passed; a tax cut costing $1.7 trillion over 10 years that benefits disproportionately the top 2 percent of Americans. I think most Americans today, given the war on terrorism and the difficulties in the stock market, would say, maybe we ought to hold off for 1 year on that tax cut. Let us see how the war on terrorism goes. Let us see how the stock market rebounds, hopefully, within that 1-year period, before we execute on this tax cut, just for this 1 year; postpone it 1 year. Would that not be the prudent thing to do? But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, no, we are going ahead with this tax cut, which will cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years, benefiting disproportionately the top 2 percent of Americans, and then cry or complain that we are spending too much money, and too much money is going out and not enough is coming in. I think average Americans would say let us postpone this tax cut for at least a year and see what the economy, what the world situation is like; take all that savings that was going to the top 2 percent of Americans, who, by the way, are doing very well, and God bless them, and not have this battle today over which essential program we are going to cut or not cut, rather than mess with this tax cut.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great public servant and a remarkable spiritual leader--Reverend David Arias. Ordained to the priesthood just over 50 years ago on May 31, 1952 in Barcelona, Spain, Reverend Arias has served the Christian community with distinction as Auxiliary Bishop of Newark, Regional Bishop of Hudson County, Vicar of Hispanic Affairs for the Archdiocese of Newark, and Pastor of St. Joseph's of the Palisades Church. As a voice of comfort and reason, Reverend Arias has committed himself to the church and provided guidance and wisdom to those in his congregation and community. Anyone who has ever known Reverend Arias knows full well that his heart is filled with love, compassion, and faith. As a pillar of our community, Reverend Arias opened the Catholic Hispanic Center in Union City, was named head of the Spanish Cursillo Movement, and has written seven books including Spanish Roots in America and Spanish Cross in Georgia. Yet Reverend Arias's record of service, numerous appointments, and accomplishments are only part of what makes him so remarkable. Anyone who has had the pleasure of his company or the opportunity to work by his side, knows that his eloquence, intellect, and dignity have made him a model leader for his congregants and a venerable advocate for the people of his community. I wish Reverend Arias and his family all the best. We thank him for his service and commitment to our community and to the people of the great State of New Jersey.