Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister June Favata for her years of service and dedication to the young women of Saint Vincent Academy in Newark, New Jersey. Sister Favata was honored at the Celebration of the Life of Monsignor Geno Charles Baroni luncheon on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at the North Ward Center in Newark.

Sister June Favata has been a Sister of Charity of Saint Elizabeth for 42 years, dedicating most of her time and focus to the education of young women at Saint Vincent Academy. Sister Favata began her career at Saint Vincent Academy as an English teacher in 1969. After years of hard work and innovative thinking, she became program director of the Administrative team in 1978, and assumed the position of administrative director in 1985.

For over 30 years, Sister Favata has helped to establish several interdisciplinary programs at Saint Vincent Academy, focused on preparing students for the rigors of college by promoting self- discipline, personal responsibility, and enhancing academic skills and work ethic. Sister Favata, along with other colleagues, spearheaded the Students-in Community Program, a tool used to integrate social responsibility with formal education. It is an opportunity for students to learn of the underlying causes of social issues, while volunteering and helping out their respective communities.

Sister June Favata has received several awards for her dedicated service to the City of Newark and Saint Vincent Academy, such as the Distinguished Secondary School Teacher Award in the State of New Jersey from Princeton University; Community Leadership and Service Award from Saint Benedicts Preparatory School; and the Miracle Maker Award from the United Way of Essex and West Hudson.

Sister Favata is a life-long New Jersey resident, and received her bachelor's degree in English from the College of Saint Elizabeth and her master's degree in Communication Art from the University of Notre Dame.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Sister June Favata for her dedicated and tireless service to her community and for 34 years of outstanding leadership to the students of Saint Vincent Academy of Newark.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Harrison Post 282 American Legion on its 65th Anniversary. An anniversary celebration was held on Saturday, January 17, 2004, at Post 282 Headquarters, 8 Patterson Street, Harrison, New Jersey. The ceremony was presided over by Commander Edwin Marshman, Sr.

On September 16, 1919, the United States Congress chartered the American Legion. The purpose of the American Legion is to serve as a community organization sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, to foster and promote the ideals of patriotism, and to preserve the memories of wars and battles fought by our courageous men and women in uniform. The American Legion is vital to the preservation and celebration of American heritage. It understands the power and value of our history. Yesterday, these brave soldiers served in the Armed Services to preserve America; today, they serve in our communities to preserve our heritage.

Although the majority of the service provided by the American Legion is geared towards veterans' issues, its service does not stop there. The American Legion is heavily involved in children and youth and community service activities. Since its inception in 1919, the American Legion has been a supporter of the Boy Scouts of America. Today, the Legion is the chartering agency for more than 1,700 scouting units involving more then 64,000 youths.

Harrison Post 282 was formed in 1939 by a group of dedicated Harrison veterans who

wished to foster the goals of the American Legion in their community. Harrison Post 282 received its permanent charter from the American Legion in 1941. In its 65 years, Harrison Post 282 has continuously upheld the goals of the American Legion, helping countless veterans and serving as a pillar of the Harrison community in a variety of activities.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 65th Anniversary of the Harrison Post 282 American Legion and in honoring its outstanding commitment to veterans and their community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard A. Rutkowski and Regina J. Rutkowski for their years of service and dedication to their community. Mr. and Mrs. Rutkowski were honored by the Richard A. Rutkowski Association at the 25th Anniversary Gala Dinner-Dance on Saturday, January 17, 2004, at the Hi-Hat Caterers in Bayonne, New Jersey.

Richard A. Rutkowski is former mayor and two-term council member-at- large for the City of Bayonne. In 1992 and 1993, Mr. Rutkowski was elected by fellow mayors to the 25 member executive board of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. Mr. Rutkowski is currently a director of the Bayonne Chapter of the National Conference for Community and Justice, an active member of the American Polish Veterans, Assumption Catholic War Veterans Post no. 1612, and Bayonne Elks Lodge #434.

Mr. Rutkowski has served on a number of boards of directors for committees, civic, religious, professional and ethnic organizations He is a former member of the Parish Council and school board member at Our Lady of Mount Carmel, where he served as the chairman of the Parish Centennial Committee. Mr. Rutkowski has also served as assistant cubmaster of Pack 19.

For all his remarkable accomplishments, dedication to his community, and leadership, Mr. Rutkowski has received numerous awards, including the YMCA Award, Citizen of the Year Award from the Bayonne Kiwanis Club in 1990, and National Conference for Community and Justice Humanitarian Award in 2001.

Born and raised in Bayonne, Mr. Rutkowski attended Saint Peter's Prep and received his bachelor's degree from Saint Peter's College. Mr. Rutkowski received a master's degree from Stevens Institute of Technology.

Regina J. Rutkowski was born in Poland, and is a survivor of the Nazi occupation. After years of suffering, her family relocated to England and then to the United States. Mrs. Rutkowski attended New Jersey City University where she graduated Summa Cum Laude, and received her bachelor's degree in History.

Mrs. Rutkowski has been involved in a variety of charitable, social and civic organizations in which she has held several positions, such as Bayonne's marshall of the Pulaski Day Parade in 1997, trustee of the Bayonne Historical Society, and honorary chair on the 25th Anniversary of the Pro Arte League of the Kosciuszko Foundation.

Mrs. Rutkowski is an active member in numerous organizations, including the Bayonne Pulaski Memorial Committee, Polish-American Heritage Committee of Bayonne, Polish-American Citizens Club, and Royal Arcanum.

Mrs. Rutkowski is a member of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, where she serves on the Parish Council. She is an usherette and former member of the parish's Centennial Committee. She currently serves as treasurer of the Mount Carmel Guild.

Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. Rutkowski are the proud parents of three sons, Richard Jr., Stephen, and Robert, and grandparents of three wonderful children, Stephen, Alexa and Robert.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Richard A. Rutkowski and Regina J. Rutkowski for their outstanding leadership, tireless work and service in the community, and commitment to their fellow man.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that an International Relations Committee hearing on Haiti yesterday caused me to miss Rollcall vote 38, on final passage of H.R. 1561, the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall vote 38.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 504) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 495) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate, on behalf of all the members of the Democratic Caucus, our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), whom the Democratic Caucus elected as the new ranking member on the Committee on Science. He is a proven leader on the Committee on Science and within this body, and I know that he will serve our Nation well in his new capacity.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan that we consider here tonight is not a Medicare prescription drug plan, but rather a poison bill for our Nation's seniors and for Medicare itself. The more you know about this bill, the less you like it.

The Republican plan would encourage employers to drop retiree coverage for their employees. And this means that approximately 94,000 New Jerseyans in my State will be left with no coverage. I thought this debate is supposed to be about expanding coverage for our seniors, not taking it away.

Under their demonstration plan, 7 million beneficiaries would be forced to pay more for Medicare if they do not give up their doctor and join an HMO. The Republican plan would cut payments to oncologists nationwide and would result in New Jersey cancer care providers losing $552 million, this in a State that has the third highest instance of cancer in the United States, and in which cancer is the second leading cause of death.

Republicans would include a $14 billion bribe to get private insurance company plans to compete against Medicare. Why give away billions of taxpayers money to private insurance interests when that money could be used to enhance a true prescription drug benefit under Medicare? Obviously, Republicans are more concerned about their special interests than senior interests.

Republicans would make millions of seniors pay more for their drugs. Seniors would pay $4,020 out of the first $5,100 in prescription drug costs. And low-income seniors, like my 83-year-old mother who worked her entire life in the factory of New Jersey and who suffers from Alzheimer's, would pay higher premiums and would lose additional assistance under Medicaid. And only in Washington would Republicans prohibit the Federal Government from using the collective purchasing power of 40 million citizens to obtain lower prescription drug prices.

Let us stand up for our parents and our grandparents and our seniors. Vote against the rule. Vote against this poison pill that is this plan.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was tending to official business and was not present for Roll Call Votes 620 through 623. The votes were on Senate Joint Resolutions 22 and 18, House Concurrent Resolution 299, and on a motion to the meeting time of the House, respectively. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these measures.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 634, I was unavoidably detained in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report which is the subject of the rule represents only the second time in modern history that a conference report filed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure does not include a single Democrat signature. The first time this happened was the first conference report on this same bill which subsequently had to be recommitted, and this last conference report is no better; and we will be back here again because this bill will simply not pass the Senate.

Now, the House rules governing conference committee requires that at least one conference committee be held and what that means is that all of the conferees, all of the conferees get invited in democracy, my friends, in a democracy which we try to promote throughout the world. We stand here and resolution after resolution promote it throughout the world. We are

in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan, but here in the greatest democracy in the world, Democrats representing 134 million Americans in this country through the 206 members of the Democratic Caucus do not get invited to a conference to have those Americans' views on this important air safety issue.

That is outrageous and it is the corruption of the process and the corruption of the House rules. You are supposed to have a conference committee that brings all to the table. Not only did you corrupt the House rules and the conference, you corrupted the will of the House that voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan manner on this question of air privatization of air traffic controllers.

The House clearly said we do not want rent-a-controllers. The chairman of the full committee in the first conference report did not want it for Alaska. So if it is not good for Alaska, it is not good for any other State of the Nation. I agree with him and his wisdom.

Also, you corrupt the process when you do not permit the opportunity for our colleagues to participate on behalf of those 134 million Americans. After September 11 we did not privatize screeners; we Federalized them. We federalized them. And on the September 11 day, it was these air traffic controllers that brought to the ground hundreds and hundreds of planes across the country in a very incredibly short period of time in order to ensure the safety of those who were traveling on those planes and the safety of all Americans should those airplanes be used as they were used in New York and in the Pentagon as weapons of mass destruction.

So let us give to air traffic controllers in a privatized function the responsibility for air security as well.

America cannot afford, in terms of the traveling public's safety once they are in the air, to have those airplanes which we have seen can be turned into weapons of mass destruction, ultimately be controlled by some privatized entity.

We need to continue to keep it as it is. It is the safest, most reliable system in the world. I simply do not know why we are trying to undo that, and I certainly do not know what is so terrible about the marketplace of ideas that my colleagues cannot have us in the conference room and the opportunity to make sure that the rest of America knows what they are doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report that this rule seeks to bring to the House floor. During House consideration of this bill, I pledged that I would not write the Bush administration a blank check of the taxpayers' money for the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq. I pledged not to write a blank check for a plan with no exit strategy, no clear link to this supplemental, and no details for after January of this coming year. I pledged not to hand over $18.6 billion of the taxpayers' money to build Iraq's electricity infrastructure when ours is not functioning here at home. I pledged not to sanction the use of American money to modernize Iraq's medical facilities and medical equipment when millions of Americans here at home are living without health care. And I pledged not to spend the American people's money to pay for that which we did not damage and that which did not previously exist in Iraq. I pledged not to send $18.6 billion in grants to a country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world, worth approximately $7 trillion. Why should Iraq not be expected to pay back this money? And I pledged not to add another $18.6 billion to this year's deficit, estimated already at over $480 billion.

Each of us in this Chamber has a responsibility to the American people to demand an Iraq package that will not bankrupt future generations. That is why the American people still support creating a loan package for Iraq, not a grant. Iraq can and should pay back the money for reconstruction with their future oil reserves. Period. Evidently, I reached the same conclusion many of the nations and organizations at the Madrid donors conference reached themselves. That conference only produced $4 billion in grants and roughly $13 billion in loans and trade credits, that amount toward a total estimated Iraqi need of $56 billion over the next 4 years. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not the last time that we will see moneys being brought by the administration for Iraq. And why should the American taxpayer not be paid back if the taxpayer in other countries, countries that did not support this effort, will be paid back?

The consequence of this grant approach is that the American taxpayer will pay more than he or she should, will pay more for Halliburton to make more. The President's suggestion that bombings in Iraq are a result of our success is outrageous. The bombings are a failure of our postintervention planning, not a symbol of success. And though I strongly support our American servicemembers and the money that is going to them in this bill, made much better because of Democratic efforts, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Jack Jacobs for his years service and dedication to his country. Colonel Jacobs will be honored by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States at the Testimonial Dinner on Thursday, October 30, 2003, at the Newark Liberty Airport Wyndham in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Colonel Jack Jacobs is a veteran of the Vietnam War, serving two tours of duty courageously. His heroism is exemplified by his numerous commendations, including two Purple Heart Medals, three Bronze Stars, two Silver Stars, and the Medal of Honor, the United States highest combat decoration. Colonel Jacobs risked his life and overcame personal injury to save the lives of 13 allied soldiers and one United States advisor. Colonel Jacobs retired from the United States Army in 1987.

Colonel Jack Jacobs serves on several boards of directors on numerous companies, and is the secretary of the Board of Directors for the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. Colonel Jacobs is a regular fixture on CNBC and MSNBC as a military and foreign affairs analyst.

Colonel Jack Jacobs received his bachelor's degree from Rutgers University. During his military service, Colonel Jacobs served as a faculty member at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, and the National War College in Washington, DC.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Colonel Jack Jacobs for his outstanding leadership and courage, his 21 years of military service, and his commitment to his fellow man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey for its efforts in developing and advancing the role of Hispanics in small businesses, and in enhancing the interests of Hispanics throughout New Jersey. On Friday, October 17, 2003, the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey will hold its 13th Annual Convention and Expo at the Newark Airport Marriot Hotel in Newark, New Jersey.

The Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey has contributed to the increase of business opportunities, prosperity and success for Hispanics throughout the state by forming new partnerships with Latin America, bringing products and jobs back to New Jersey, and creating further economic development and business opportunities throughout our region.

The Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey has been serving as an advocate for Hispanic small businesses in the political process since its inception in 1989, successfully bringing the issues and concerns of Hispanic-owned businesses to the forefront of the local and national economic agenda.

As the Hispanic market continues to represent the fastest growing economic sector in the United States, events, such as The Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey 13th Annual Convention and Expo, benefit the general business community, government agencies and Hispanic entrepreneurs, while providing networking opportunities.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey for playing a critical role in the success of Hispanic businesses throughout New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his work and also the gentleman from California and rise to support their amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the question before us is whether we give the President a blank check for $86 billion or whether we fashion a bill that promotes the best interests both of our troops and the American people. I for one do not intend to write a blank check for a plan that just came here yesterday with no exit strategy, no clear link to this supplemental and no detailed plan after January of this coming year. I do not intend to send $18.6 billion in grants to a country that has the second largest oil reserve in the world valued at over $7 trillion.

Why should we not expect Iraq to pay back some of this money? It is not a poor country, and it will not be a poor country. And for all of my friends who have been deficit hawks, you are just going to add another $18.6 billion to this year's deficit, estimated at over $480 billion. We have a responsibility to the American people to demand an Iraq package that will not in essence bankrupt future generations. That is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), his package along with my colleague the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations is the appropriate vehicle, a loan package. They can and should pay back reconstruction costs with future oil revenues. Period.

Finally, this administration has failed to present us with a financially responsible plan for reconstruction in Iraq. Their Iraq request would have invested over $255 per person on electricity in Iraq, when we only spend 71 cents per person in the United States on our own failing electricity grid. Their request would have spent over $38 per person in Iraq for medical infrastructure while we spend about $3.30 per person in the United States. The administration's total request of $87 billion is more than all 50 States combined would need to make up for budget shortfalls in 2004. Their total request is more than the Federal Government hopes to spend next year on elementary and secondary education and on homeland security combined. Combined.

This is clearly not the way that the American people want to see us proceed. They understand that maybe that there are those things that we have to make investments in, but that should be paid back. Our troops should not be held hostage to an outright grant for Iraq's reconstruction, and that is why this amendment should pass. Let us loan the money to Iraq, let us help rebuild it, but let us not mortgage the future of the next generation of Americans.