Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, which inaccurately describes the war in Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror. While I strongly and proudly support our courageous and dedicated troops, coalition partners, and the Iraqi Security Forces who put their lives on the line each and every day to fight for a democratic, stable and secure Iraq, I cannot support a resolution that does not paint an accurate picture of what the true situation on the ground is in Iraq.

It is imperative that we acknowledge these realities: since we invaded Iraq in March 2003, more than 2,500 American service men and women have been killed in Iraq; 18,000 have been wounded. More than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. Nearly $350 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Terrorist leader al- Zarqawi has been killed and Saddam Hussein is in prison, but the pacification and reconstruction of Iraq have been a failure. Every single fact that the President has offered to justify both the invasion of and the sustained U.S. military presence in Iraq has proven to be wrong. The President said that the war would be short-lived, aided by our allies, paid for by Iraqi oil, welcomed by the Iraqi people, and would result in a reconstructed Iraq with an improved quality of life for its citizens. His strategy in Iraq is not working and, as we have seen so many times, he and his administration are incapable of admitting mistakes--even when those mistakes are irrefutable.

This war has exhausted our military, hurt our war on terrorism, damaged our country's credibility internationally, and strained our economy. I strongly believe that the President's current ``stay the course'' plan in Iraq is not working. We need a new strategy. We need to take our troops out of Iraq.

I strongly disagree with the assertion in this resolution that our continuing presence in Iraq is a vital part of fighting our war on terrorism. After all, the attacks on our troops in Iraq are not coming primarily from al-Qaeda. There are only approximately 1,000 al-Qaeda amidst the 26 million people of Iraq. The attacks on US. troops are planned by an insurgency that is comprised of native Iraqis. Once the American soldiers leave, we will remove the stimulus for the local Iraqi and worldwide incitement against America as an ``occupier.'' We can continue to assist the Iraqi people in strengthening their fledgling democracy, but we must remove the provocation of an American military presence and instead, reinvest our resources in strengthening U.S. border and port security, defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and rebuilding our much-depleted U.S. military.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and instead, support a new plan in Iraq that will bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, how did this happen? We have lost 2,500 American servicemen and women. They have been killed in Iraq. 18,000 U.S. soldiers grievously wounded. We have spent over one-third of a trillion dollars in Iraq on this war, so far. Yet, 80 percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave. 80 percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave. They are shooting at our soldiers, blowing up our soldiers with improvised explosive devices.

How did we get here? Oh, yeah. I remember. President Bush said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States and had weapons of mass destruction. So many of us voted to send our troops to Iraq to eliminate this threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction and this imminent threat to our national security.

It turned out not to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was no imminent threat to the United States. Well, we deposed him and that is a good thing. But there was a huge power vacuum and many of us felt, even though we were misled going into war, that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people stabilize their country and bring democracy there, and we have been there now 3 years, 2,500 dead, 18,000 of our young men and women wounded, a third of $1 trillion spent, and 80 percent of the Iraqis want us to leave.

I support the Murtha resolution, which says that we should withdraw most of the U.S. troops back to the United States and leave a quick reaction force in friendly countries around the region.

Some say Iraq is part of the war on terror. Nonsense. There are 25 million people in Iraq, 25 million people in Iraq, less than 1,000 foreign fighters. This is a civil war. The Iraqi Shiias, Sunnis, and Kurds cannot agree how to divide up Iraq now that we got rid of Saddam. Well, it is 3 years later. All of this American loss of life. President Bush says stay the course, and in fact, it will not be President Bush who gets rid of this war. It will be the next President. Well, you know what? Americans do not want this war without end. Deploy most of our troops back to America within 6 months. Redeploy a significant number in friendly countries around the horizon in case other countries want to meddle.

War without end is not the American way. We met our moral obligation to

the people of Iraq. Now it is up to the Shiias, Sunnis, and Kurds in Iraq to decide whether they want to live in peace with one another or not.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend our subcommittee Chair, Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Olver. We have a very interesting subcommittee. We cover a lot of ground, a lot of very interesting subject matters. And I must tell you that our chairman not only permits a wide range of debate and discussion and questioning, perhaps he even encourages it, because he certainly hasn't stopped me and he has been very, very generous in the way he has treated the members of the minority, and I thank him.

My ranking member shows great leadership on all of our issues, and his work is reflected in this bill which, while we all wish there were a lot more money because more money is deserving for this bill, I believe he has managed to reach the kind of compromises that were possible, given this shortage in money. Of course, I am disappointed in the amount of money for Amtrak. I am disappointed in some other matters; but as a former mayor, for example, I am delighted at the Community

Development Block Grant money because that money is so critical.

And, of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank the majority staff and the minority staff for tolerating my obsession with various items, including Teterboro Airport, and once again the subcommittee has chosen to protect this airport from abuse. It is not a partisan matter, as the majority and minority have acknowledged. It is a matter that appeals to all the people in my district, and, again, I am just so grateful.

I want to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their kindness and cooperation throughout this year in the consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member and my friend from the State of New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I want to thank our distinguished chairman, Mr. Kolbe from Arizona. It has been a great honor and privilege to work with you, sir, all of these years. We are going to miss you, your wisdom and your kindness and your sense of fairness. Thank you, sir, for all you have done for us and for our work. And to Ms. Lowey, our ranking member, thank you for your leadership as the ranking member for bringing our priorities to the floor and our values. You are a tireless and effective advocate.

Mr. Chairman, despite an allocation from the Budget Committee that was lower than what we had hoped, we I believe on our subcommittee have accomplished a great deal and in a bipartisan way, such as providing funds for critical programs such as global AIDS and HIV programs, basic education worldwide, and economic and military assistance for many of our allies.

This assistance to our allies is important for three reasons: One, it improves strategic relations with important countries around the world who help guarantee America's security and the perpetuation of democracy and western values, countries such as the State of Israel, Armenia and Cyprus. It also provides humanitarian assistance for nations in need such as in the Sudan, Liberia and Haiti. It keeps our trade relations strong, promoting cooperation between nations that help us solve global problems and feed the world.

With regards to the environment, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the United States may not be doing enough under this bill to contribute to the international programs that protect the environment. The Global Environment Facility, or the GEF, is the single largest source of funding for programs that conserve and protect biodiversity and preserve habitats in countries around the world, from Bangladesh to Brazil.

In the roughly 15 years since its creation, the U.S.'s funding to the GEF has leveraged at least $14 for every $1 we have contributed, $14 for every $1 we have contributed. International conservation issues, Mr. Chairman, know no national boundaries; and I think the funding model of the GEF where our funding is matched many times over by other donors to solve problems that impact us all, is a smart, fair, and effective approach. Given the importance of the GEF to the global environment, I am concerned about the level of funding for the GEF in this fiscal year 2007 bill.

The administration requested $56.25 for the GEF in this year's budget, which the committee funded at the request level. But this is a 48 percent cut compared with the administration's own request last year. In the meantime, as our distinguished chairman knows, just this past Tuesday, the GEF adopted all of the reforms proposed by the Treasury Department associated with the fourth replacement of the GEF.

The U.S. negotiators have now committed our country to providing $80 million to the GEF in fiscal year 2007. An increase of $23.75 million over the President's budget. I certainly hope that in the conference, our distinguished chairman, our ranking member and the other people participating in the conference, will work to have this full $80 million committed by the Treasury in the conference report. This is vitally important to our Nation's and our world's environment.

I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member on this issue as we move forward towards the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, what if a member of your family were heading in a direction that was going to cause that person irrevocable harm, a member of your family? Would you stand by and say nothing? Someone you love. Or would you get their attention however you could as subtly as possible but if subtlety does not work then with a little more oomph to get their attention, to get them to change direction because they are going in a destructive direction?

That is what the Obey amendment is about. It is about our friend Egypt, a member of our family, if you will, going in the wrong direction. A friend who we have committed more than $67 billion to, delivered it to them. They have done wonderful things for our national security as well. We are great and good friends, Egypt and the United States, but our friend Egypt is headed in the wrong direction.

Just this past year, President Mubarak's leading opposition candidate for president was put in jail. Emergency laws which suspend democracy and the rule of law are still in effect. Independent judges have been disciplined for not following in lockstep with what the government says is their agenda. Freedom of the press has been weakened. And just this week, the International Republican Institute, a democracy building program in Egypt that is also funded by our Appropriations Committee, was suspended for criticizing the slow pace of reforms in Egypt.

People around the world, countries around the world, Mr. Chairman, have no hesitation telling us in America when we are moving in the wrong direction. Even in a time of war, other countries who are our friends say, America, you should not do that. You are going in the wrong direction. Well, that is what the Obey amendment does. It says to our friends in Egypt, please, we have tried every subtle way to get your attention, it has not succeeded. We are going to try to get your attention now with this $100 million transfer to two very worthy purposes, by the way, HIV/AIDS relief in Africa and $50 million for Darfur, clearly places where this money will be put to better effect.

Now, again, I view the Egyptian people as honorable and great people, great friends of the United States. I heard somewhere that that somebody said Egypt is defending Israel. By the way, Israel is America's greatest ally in the Middle East by far and votes with American more than any other country. Egypt unfortunately only votes with us 8 percent. Israel votes with America over 90 percent of the time at the U.N. Israel takes care of itself.

But, Mr. Chairman, we need to send a message to our friend, Egypt, to finally make these changes and show progress this coming year in the rule of law, in respect for democracy and human rights. I support the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate four outstanding students from Saddle Brook Middle School in my district: Urszula Kapinos, Heather Kuehnle, Ashley LaRose, and Kasia Truszkowska. This team of girls was recently named the national winners of the Christopher Columbus Awards competition, a science and technology program for middle school students, for their invention called the Auto-MAT-ic. As the winners of the competition, the girls received a $25,000 award to further develop their prize winning invention.

The dedication that Urszula, Heather, Ashley, and Kasia have demonstrated to this project is a true testament to the excellent work that is being done in New Jersey public schools. After learning that 1.6 million senior citizens are treated in emergency rooms for injuries caused by falls in the home and that

many of these falls are caused by darkness, these four members of the Saddle Brook Gifted and Talented Program figured out a way to help solve one of the causes of this problem. As a result of four months of intensive research and design, they invented a pressure sensitive floor mat, the Auto-MAT-ic, that automatically illuminates a bedside lamp enabling seniors to see, so they can walk safely at night. Preventing falls will not only save injuries and medical costs, but it will also help seniors retain their independence.

In many ways, the work has only started for these young ladies. They are currently putting their $25,000 prize to good use. The girls have contracted with a company to help them make their product wireless and to date they have made progress in creating four prototypes that are being tested by seniors. In addition, the students have created their own corporation, Safety Steps LLC. On Monday, May 15, 2006 the group will be in Washington, D.C. to meet with Congressional staff, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the Center for Aging Services Technology about their product and to continue their advocacy on behalf of seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of these four students. I commend Urszula Kapinos, Heather Kuehnle, Ashley LaRose, and Kasia Truszkowska for their continued pursuit of trying to help keep seniors safe by creating devices to help prevent falls in the home. On behalf of the people of the Ninth Congressional District of New Jersey, I congratulate them on winning the Christopher Columbus Award. I wish them continued success in their work and advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Edward Kerbeykian, a resident of Tenafly, New Jersey, for his devoted service to Hekemian & Co., Inc. as a senior staff member for 55 years.

Mr. Kerbeykian currently serves as Hekemian & Co.'s Senior Vice President. Since 1950, he has made many meaningful contributions to the company. During this time period, he has also been a dedicated member of the Hackensack, New Jersey business community and served in leadership positions of the Hackensack Lions Club for nearly fifty years and the Chamber of Commerce for more than 20 years. In fact, he was even given the nickname, ``Mr. Main Street'' because of his contributions to the early stages of the development of Main Street in Hackensack.

Mr. Kerbeykian, who is of Armenian descent, has been a devoted member of the Sts. Vartanantz Armenian Apostolic Church in Ridgefield, New Jersey and was involved, years ago, in the Armenian Folk Dance Society of New York. He is a devoted husband to Shirlee, wonderful father to Craig, who also holds a leadership position at Hekemian & Co., and the late Jeffrey Kerbeykian, a prominent New York City architect, and a loving grandfather of six.

Today, I would like to recognize Edward Kerbeykian's leadership at Hekemian & Co., for more than half a century and the many contributions he has made to this company as well as to the community of Hackensack, the County of Bergen and Northern New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in commemorating the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and remembering the death of 1.5 million Armenians during the years 1915-1923.

We have witnessed a reprehensible ninety-one years of denial by the international community of one of the most horrific crimes against humankind, the systematic and planned extermination of an entire ethnic group. The failure of the international community to hold the Ottoman Empire accountable for the Armenian Genocide initiated a cycle of genocide that continues to this day in Darfur, where an estimated 400,000 people have died and 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes.

Turkey's persistent denial of their predecessor government's responsibility for the Armenian Genocide sets a dangerous precedent that makes future genocides more likely. In fact, many of the tactics employed by the Ottoman Empire against the defenseless Armenian population are now being used in Darfur today--forced exile, systematic deprivation of food and water, and murder through starvation. If the cycle is to end, there must be accountability for genocide. This is why it is critical that the U.S. government officially recognize the Armenian Genocide and also, pressure Turkey to end its campaign of genocide denial. Genocide denial is the last stage of genocide and what Elie Wiesel has termed to be a ``double killing.'' The United States cannot remain silent as this ``double killing'' continues every day through Turkey's multi-million dollar worldwide campaign to suppress the teaching of the Armenian Genocide.

I stand united with Armenians and Armenian-Americans in my district and around the country who continue to fight for recognition of the atrocities of the Armenian Genocide so the world will never forget the first crime against humanity in the 20th Century. And I promise to continue to stand firm against the efforts of those who deny the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. Speaker, the American people should be outraged to learn that all it takes to get on an on-demand charter flight at a general aviation airport is a credit card. You don't have to go through an x ray machine. No one is going to look into your carry-on bags. You and your friends can literally bring anything you want to on one of these flights and no one is going to stop you. According to the charter aviation industry this is actually a good thing and it represents advancement in security from the days where cash could get you a seat on one of these planes. And Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking here about small prop planes used by recreational pilots. Jets in the charter industry are larger, faster, and heavier than they used to be, therefore making them more like their commercial counterparts than ever before.

One of the ten busiest general aviation airports in the country is in my district. Teterboro Airport is only 12 miles from New York City and handles a volume of over 200,000 flights every year, nearly equal to the number of flights at JFK International Airport. So far this year there have been three incidents at the airport, including one where a car crashed through the airport's chain link fence on January 12th. An 18-year-old driver lost control of her Jeep and ran through the cyclone fence that separates a major roadway from parked planes. After going through the fence, the car actually crashed into a fully fueled plane parked on the tarmac causing damage to both the car and the plane. For those who have never driven by Teterboro, I'm sure it seems outrageous that a car could crash through the airport's fence and hit a plane. But it's true. This incident raises a question that all of us should be asking ourselves: If an 18-year-old can accidentally breach the security fence and drive straight onto the tarmac, into a fully fueled aircraft, at one of the busiest general aviation airports in the country, what could a motivated psychopath or terrorist do? Mr. Speaker, this incident speaks to the need for much greater security at general aviation airports.

We know that our Nation remains an inviting target for terrorists and we would be foolish not to assume they are looking for vulnerabilities. If a terrorist had a chemical or biological weapon and needed an airborne delivery mechanism, it would be shamefully easy to commander an aircraft at an airport like Teterboro, fly that plane over New York City, less than 5 minutes flight time away, and deploy that weapon.

The threat posed by lax security at general aviation airports does not begin and end with a car crashing through a fence. There are other very worrisome concerns, starting with the security and screening procedures for passengers boarding air taxi flights. Security procedures are actually nonexistent. Let me repeat, there are no security requirements for these passengers. That's right; no Federal agency requires any screening. In fact, passengers are not even required to show a license or have their baggage checked. All you need to do to hop on board an air taxi service flight is a credit card to buy your ticket. There's absolutely nothing else you need to do.

So you might be wondering, if the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration are not regulating security at general aviation airports, then who is? The industry is of course. To help them out, TSA worked with the charter industry to publish ``Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports'' in May of 2004. But none of these guidelines are mandatory. They offer suggestions and guidance, but the TSA does not require any local airport operators, owners, or users to put the guidelines to use. If we're not mandating security procedures, then what's the point of even having guidelines? Since there are no mandatory requirements, the threat to our Nation's security remains.

The excuse for the inadequate security has been that it is impossible to provide a one-size-fits-all security plan for the Nation's 19,000 general aviation airports. If that's true, then why isn't the TSA looking at airports in high risk locations? That seems like a reasonable place to start, but the TSA has not even done that.

However, there has been one notable exception where the TSA stepped in and mandated tighter security for general aviation aircraft. Just a few miles away from the Capitol at Ronald Reagan National Airport, the TSA requires all general aviation flights leaving and coming into Reagan National to undergo special security procedures and all passengers must be screened by TSA. Now, I understand the threats that exist for flights around our Nation's Capitol. However, the same risks exist for my constituents in Northern New Jersey and for the people of Manhattan and New York who are at the same risk from flights taking off and landing at Teterboro Airport. Yet, the only thing the TSA has done to improve security at Teterboro is to require that flights to Reagan National follow the required safety precautions. This is just not enough.

There clearly is nothing preventing a terrorist from taking out a credit card, buying a ticket on an air charter flight, showing up for the flight with a gun, a bomb, or even a weapon of mass destruction and stepping onto a jet. With no air marshal on board and a full tank of fuel, any general aviation jet could become the next weapon of mass destruction. If the TSA wanted to do something about this threat they would, but they haven't. They are putting all their efforts into preventing the kind of attacks we saw on 9-11 and putting their trust in the charter industry to protect our Nation from a new style of air- based attack. In fact, the charter industry, which has seen dramatic growth since 9-11, markets itself based on its lax security procedures. They spend millions of dollars in advertising to the rich and powerful that the way to avoid the security hassles and inconvenience of commercial airports is to book a seat on a charter flight. They actually promote their own lack of security.

Protecting our homeland is the responsibility of government. It's time for this Congress and the administration to open their eyes and address this urgent homeland security concern. This industry is expected to grow by as much as 25 percent in the next few years. We must do something now. I urge the Homeland Security and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees to address this issue and enact

legislation that will keep America safe from the threat posed by the lack of security at general aviation airports.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to all those at the Bergen Record newspaper who worked on the excellent award-winning `Toxic Legacy' series of articles, which documented Ford Motor Company's dumping of toxic waste in northern Bergen and Passaic Counties in New Jersey.

The latest award from the Society of Professional Journalists is a testament to the dedicated reporting of Jan Barry, Barbara Williams, Tom Troncone, Mary Jo Layton, Alex Nussbaum and Lindy Washburn, photographer Thomas E. Franklin, Editor Debra Lynn Vial, and project leader Tim Nostrand.

Investigative journalism of the caliber shown in this series is critical to an informed electorate and democracy. I am proud that so many prestigious journalism awards have gone to a daily newspaper written, printed, and distributed in my own District. Residents of Bergen and Passaic Counties are privileged to have access to a vibrant and competitive free press in New Jersey.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, what are the priorities of the Republican majority? This is the greatest deficit in the history of the United States. How are they going to pay for the tax cuts? They are going to borrow the money from India and China to pay for tax cuts.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Democrats say middle class and working class people can use tax cuts. But in a time of war, the greatest deficit in our history, the richest people in the country don't need tax cuts. If you have $1 million a year income or $10 million a year income you don't need your tax cuts.

The gentleman says everybody should have them. But in a time of scarcity, when you cut funds for veterans, you cut funds for kids going to college, you cut funds for people with children with disabilities, you don't continue to give the money away to the richest people in the country.

That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, what are the priorities of the Democratic Party? And what are the priorities of the Republican majority, the Republican majority who have been in power in the House and the Senate for 5\1/2\ years with a Republican President for 5\1/2\ years, with their policies, leading to a greater and greater difference, disparity in incomes between the very rich and the middle class and the working poor and the poor, and the greatest deficit in the history of the United States. That is the result of the priorities and policies of the Republican majority. That is a fact. I believe they are the wrong priorities, and they put us continuous on the wrong track, but that will be up to the voters in November to change.

But what about the comments you hear about these tax cuts that are spurring the economy in unprecedented revenues? Hogwash. Hogwash. The Secretary of Treasury, John Snow, from the Bush administration came before our committee this week and said, Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush said, these tax cuts are responsible for one-third of this deficit. They are responsible for one-third of this deficit, the greatest deficit in the history of the United States. That is what these tax cuts have caused.

He said, by the way, for every dollar in tax cuts we give, we do not get back more money than we gave out in tax cuts. We get 30 to 40 cents for every dollar in tax cuts which means we lose in the Treasury 60 to 70 cents on every dollar we give out. We only get back 30 to 40 cents.

Well, if we could afford that I suppose it would be great to give people back more money. Then the question is who should get the tax cuts? People on the Republican side of the aisle say boldly, everybody should get a tax cut. Well, I do not know about you but in a time of war, in a time when we have natural disasters like Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, when people are working harder and not making any more money, they have growing health care bills and are worried about their retirement, they are having their college tuition costs increased by the Republican majority, veterans are paying more than ever because the majority says they do not have the money, they do not have the money, they say, even to inspect more than 5 percent of the containers coming into America, then say we do not have the money.

Hong Kong inspects 100 percent of the containers. What are they doing with the money? They are giving it to the very richest people in the country, and they say it boldly. Yes, we are doing that. Everybody should have a tax cut. Well, you know these same folks have been getting the benefit of trillions of dollars of tax cuts since President Bush took office.

The recession has been over for 3 years. Do they still need the money when we have the biggest deficit in history? And you tell veterans and college kids and seniors, we do not have the money for your program, or parents with kids who have disabilities, we do not have money for your program? They say, well, there they go again, those Democrats, class warfare. Hogwash.

We have to make a decision about what to do with our tax dollars. Should we spend it on people who need it, the middle class, by getting rid of this Alternative Minimum Tax. The Republican majority says no, we do not have the money to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax that affects primarily the middle class. They say they do not have the money. They did not put it in the budget.

What they did put in their budget were huge tax cuts for people making over $500,000, $1 million, $10 million, up to the sky. Forty- five percent of the tax cuts under their bill here, 45 percent of the revenues go to people with incomes of $1 million a year. Is that the country you want to live in where we allow the Republican majority to give our money to the rich and tell everybody else go jump in the lake, pull yourselves up by your boot straps, but the rich should get the money?

There is a difference, Mr. Speaker, between the Democratic Party, who says let's fix that Alternative Minimum Tax that hurts the middle class. Let's spend the money on that, not tax cuts for the very rich.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman. Maybe it is a question of religious values, but I thought every major religion in the world said that those with extreme wealth should not be living high on the hog while everybody else is suffering. I thought that that is what every major religion talked about.

If I am correct in my American history, the income tax does not say ``give the money to the rich and they do not have to pay any more than the poor.''

Our income tax system is a progressive system under the American belief that if you are incredibly wealthy you should be paying a little more in taxes, not only in dollar amount but in percentage of your taxes. That has been our tax policy in this country since there was an income tax at the beginning of the 20th century.

So we know as Americans, as good moral people, Mr. Speaker, that this is the right thing to do. You do not give your money to the people who need it the least.

Now, they say they earned it and you are not giving them back their money. However you want to describe it, how much money do we get in from those taxes? We get in enough money to still have the largest deficit, not pay for education costs and veterans costs and other costs, unless we say to those who got trillions of tax cuts since 2001, you know, you are making over $500,000 a year, you have got tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars in tax cuts since 2001, perhaps during this time of war; perhaps during the time of the greatest deficit in the history of the United States, we are going to say this year, let's give the money or take your taxes and use that money to help the middle class by getting rid of the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I said this before. I will say it again, it is worth repeating. There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republican majority. The Democrat minority, hopefully to be the majority after November, we believe the money that is collected in taxes should be spent wisely, prioritized to meet the needs of our country, the middle class, the working class, to give incentives to people to work.

If you are making $1 million, $10 million, you are going to have to pay your fair share, and you can afford to allow your taxes to be used to help the middle class. Your kids are going to have plenty to eat. Your kids are going to college, and you will drive your Rolls Royce and get it filled up every week with gasoline. That is the difference, not class warfare.

What do we do with our money? Give it to the rich or give it to the middle class who are the heart and soul and lifeblood of this economy and this country?

Can I first say a couple of things? I want to first thank Congressman Meek and yourself, my dear friend Congressman Delahunt. We started out in Congress 9\1/2\ years ago. We are delighted to welcome this very bright young man who is now a veteran Congressman.

I represent, I suppose, the 50-somethings. I know, Bill, you are probably still 30-something. But I have been watching you young people, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and others, and I have always been jumping up at my television saying, gee, I wish I had the time to add my voice. Well, something happened yesterday, gentlemen, and Mr. Speaker, that so outraged me that I had to come to the floor to speak about it.

Actually, it was this past week. We had the commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Everson, before us. He announced that he was going to, according to the President's policy, in order to collect some taxes that were acknowledged to be due by the taxpayers, the IRS is now going to hire private collection firms to collect the taxes of United States citizens.

It gets worse. Private tax collecting firms collecting taxes due by United States citizens to the IRS are going to charge up to 25 percent commission. A 25 percent commission. So for every dollar they collect from the taxpayer, they are going to keep 25 cents.

Now, what is interesting is, I asked certain questions and I discovered that a Federal employee in the Internal Revenue Service who collects taxes, their overhead is about 5 cents on the dollar. Five cents on the dollar. The private collection agencies are going to get 25 cents on the dollar.

So I asked the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, I said, Mr. Commissioner, why are you giving away taxpayer money? Federal employees to collect taxes costs 5 cents on the dollar, you are giving 25 cents on the dollar to a private firm to collect these taxes. Why are you giving away 20 cents of our money?

He said, Well, you know, the President doesn't like big government and so we are going to privatize it, in essence he was saying. We are going to give it to the private sector so we do not have it on our books that we are paying people to collect taxes.

I said, Wait a minute, the bottom line is you are wasting money, am I correct, sir?

And he said, Yes, we are.

I said, Wouldn't it make sense, Mr. Commissioner of the IRS, and by the way, we have been carrying hundreds of billions of dollars of receivables from taxpayers who didn't pay their taxes on our books for decades. So if we hired some Federal employees to add to the IRS to collect taxes, they would have plenty of work for their whole career. Isn't this a waste of money, Mr. Commissioner?

And he said, Yes.

I said, Isn't there one other element that you find frightening, to have a private company handling the private details of a taxpayers' basic and most important financial documents? Doesn't that concern you, sir?

He said, Yes, actually it does, and he pointed to some effort in New Jersey where they tried to do it and it was rife with some corruption and he was concerned about it and they were going to take steps.

I said you are worried about corruption and you are worried about the violation of the citizens' privacy by hiring these private tax collection firms, and you are going to lose 20 cents on the dollar because it costs 25 cents for these firms versus 5 cents for the IRS employee and you are wasting tens of millions of taxpayer money, and he had no answer.

I got another one today.

It was an honest answer, and I thanked him for that. He said that it was wasteful, and he said that is the budget that the President gave me.

My subcommittee had a hearing today and we had the Secretary of the Treasury in front of us, Mr. Snow. I said Mr. Secretary, a lot of people say that tax cuts that go to the richest people in the country, people making over a million dollars a year, but if you added up all of the tax cuts, people say that we get money back from the tax cuts and it fills up the government coffers far beyond what we cut in terms of taxes to the rich.

Another honest answer, he said, Congressman Rothman, for every dollar we cut in taxes, we only get back to the Federal treasury about 30 or 40 cents. For every dollar we cut in taxes, we only get back 30 or 40 cents.

I said, Wait a minute, what about the supply side notion and all this talk about the economic growth generating revenues?

He said, Well, that is the consensus of opinion, that for every dollar of taxes cut, we only get back 30 or 40 cents.

I said, Wait a minute, we are losing money every time we do a tax cut and then you tell veterans in this budget, the Bush budget, veterans have to pay more for their health care and poor people have to pay more for their prescription drugs. A family who wants to send their child to college has to pay another $2,000 or $3,000 a year. There is money for nothing but tax cuts.

He said, Oh, by the way, that deficit that we have, the largest deficit in the history of the United States, the one we have today under this Republican majority and this President, one-third of the deficit said Treasury Secretary Snow today, one-third of the deficit is directly related to the tax cuts.

Here is another interesting statistic. By the way, working people need tax cuts. They need incentives to save and incentives to work even harder than they already do, if that is possible.

But people who make over $400,000 a year, people who make over $400,000 a year, God bless them, this is a fact that we in America have to deal with in order to decide is the Republican majority and is the President or are each of them making the right policy judgments. People make tax cuts for people making over $400,000 a year.

This year if you add up just those tax cuts, it will be a greater sum than all that we spend on homeland security. And yet the majority and this administration says we can only afford to inspect 5 percent of the containers coming into America, even though in Hong Kong they inspect 100 percent of the containers. This is the priority of this administration.

By the way, I asked Secretary Snow, I said, because he was very proud that perhaps tax cuts helped get us out of the recession that was very shallow. I said, Mr. Secretary, the recession is long over. It has been over for 3 years

or more. So why do we continue to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country, accounting for a third of our deficit and when we tell working people and veterans and school kids we do not have money for you, in fact we are going to cut your budgets and keep those tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, not only is the gentleman absolutely correct that this is what this President and the Republican majority have done for 5\1/2\ years, they want to make this policy permanent. They want to make it permanent. Permanent tax cuts for individuals making over a million dollars a year. Permanent tax cuts for people making over $400,000 a year, the sum of which is greater than all we spend on homeland security, and they want to make it permanent. If we vote against it, you know what they say, there they go again, the Democrats want to raise taxes. We do not want to raise taxes, we want sensible fiscal policy that does not give us the biggest deficit in the history of the United States and does not give the people making millions of dollars a year a million dollar tax cut.

Yes, of course.

Will the gentleman yield? I have a statistic you won't believe. I happen to serve on the House Appropriations Committee.

And we were only inspecting 5 percent of the containers. That was the Republican majority's policy. They were in charge. They made the rule. The majority rules, and they won.

We said in the House Appropriations Committee, we said to our colleagues, our Republican friends, if we cut $5,000 from the 80 or $100,000 tax cut, 80 or $100,000 tax cut, depending how much money these folks make, if we just take 5,000 from the 80,000 we are sending them, we could triple the number of containers we inspect from 5 percent to 15 percent.

And do you know what every single one of my Republican colleague on the House Appropriations Committee did? They voted against it.

And I went to them and I said hey, man, what are you doing? I have nothing against people who are worth a fortune. This isn't class warfare. Do you want to give it to them, or do you want to spend it on inspecting our containers coming into the port? And they said, we are story, Steve. This was the President's directive.

Yes.

By the way, the incomes of the people who were going to have their tax cut reduced by 5,000 were only individuals whose annual income was $1 million or more. And we said, can we take 5,000 from the 80 or 100 or 150,000 they are going to get in tax cuts, take 5,000 to increase our port inspection of our containers. And every Republican said no. Mr. Speaker, that is the priority of this Republican majority and this President.

Will the gentleman yield?

You know, some people will say, oh, there the Democrats go again, class warfare. There they go again, class warfare. Nonsense. We love rich people. We love poor people. We love middle class people. We love Americans. This is about the choices that America is going to make with their tax dollars.

What should we do with the tax dollars that people send to Washington? Should we give them, by the way, the recession is over. We are in the start of the fourth year of the war in Iraq. We are still paying for Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

With all of these problems and the recession over 3 years ago, is this the time not only to continue these tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people making over $400,000 a year, millions of dollars a year? Or should we, in fact, pay off some of the debt, spend down the deficit, pay for college for kids.

And remember this, not only has this been the policy that has put us in the largest deficit in the history of the country, the Republican majority and the President want to make this policy permanent. They want to make their tax cuts for the rich permanent.

They will claim we are against wealthy people. Class warfare. Nonsense. We want the money that we send to Washington spent wisely and not given away.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is important for people to understand that this majority came in saying that we needed to balance the budget and that is why the American people should elect a Republican majority. When I was the mayor of my hometown 25 years ago, a little city in New Jersey, we had to balance the budget every year. And we did. We left them with a surplus, but at least balance the budget. And they said, well, let us make a constitutional amendment. And we said, Why are you amending the Constitution? You are in the majority. Balance the budget. You have the majority. Balance the budget.

So in terms of third-party validation, Mr. Speaker, the American people know that the Republican Party has been in power, in the majority, in the House and the Senate for about 5\1/2\ years, with President Bush as our President for 5\1/2\ years. And we have the greatest deficits in history. We are projected to have deficits for the next 15, 20 years with no end in sight, with budget cuts to education, health care, veterans, college loans, the environment, clean air, clean water. Cut, cut, cut, cut everything, except tax cuts for the wealthiest. And, again, I do not want to harp on that because tax cuts for the working people are important. But is this the time to continue that policy ad infinitum and make them permanent? I do not think so.

That is a good idea.

May I just remind the Speaker that today Secretary of the Treasury John Snow said in his testimony before our subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that the tax cuts of this majority and President Bush account for one-third of the deficit, and that every dollar that is cut for the wealthiest folks in tax cuts, we don't get back more than a dollar in revenue. We lose. For every tax dollar we cut, we only get back 30 to 40 cents. We lose 60 to 70 cents for every tax dollar we cut.

Whether that is a good thing or bad thing, the American people can decide. But in a time of war, the biggest deficits in our history, is that what we want to be doing with our money, and should we be making those tax cuts permanent?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of Wellington T. Mara, co-owner of the New York Football Giants. Mr. Mara will always be remembered for his accomplishments with the NFL. However, his legacy extends far beyond the gridiron. He was much more than the successful owner of a professional football team--he was a community leader, a dedicated family patriarch, a devout man of faith, and an outstanding American.

Wellington Mara was a devoted husband to his wonderful wife Anne, a loving father to his eleven children, an adoring grandfather to his 42 grandchildren, and a role model to all who knew him. When called to serve his nation, Wellington did so proudly as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy during World War II. Later in life, Mara served his community as a member of the board of the Giants Foundation, an organization that provides important social and financial support to underprivileged youth and their families in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area.

Mr. Mara's foresight helped to turn the NFL into the successful American enterprise that it is today. In the early 1960's, Wellington and his brother, Jack Mara, as co-owners of the most profitable team in the NFL, put the league ahead of their team by agreeing to share lucrative television revenue equally among all NFL teams. The current success of the NFL is a tribute to the esteemed character and selfless sacrifice ofthe Mara brothers. They proved to the NFL and to the nation that honorable business practices and teamwork can indeed generate great success.

Mr. Mara was well respected within the Giants organization and throughout the NFL. He was extremely loyal to players, coaches, employees, and especially the fans. He treated everyone with whom he came into contact with great respect. Under Wellington Mara's leadership, the Giants appeared in 26 postseasons, won 16 NFL divisional championships and 6 NFL championships, including the remarkable title runs in 1986 and 1990 (Super Bowls XXI and XXV) that captivated the entire New York/New Jersey area. The leadership of Wellington Mara made the Giants a wonderful organization that I am proud to have in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues will join with me in honoring the life of this exceptional man. We should all be so fortunate to leave such a tremendous legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of the 185th Anniversary of Greek Independence Day and in doing so, join millions of my fellow Americans in commemorating the rebellion of the Greek people against the Ottoman Empire and celebrate their declaration of independence on March 25, 1821.

The strong and invaluable friendship between the United States and Greece leads me to recognize Greek Independence Day, a day in which we celebrate the Hellenic people's long, but heroic revolt against 400 years of oppressive rule by the Ottomans. Their struggle for independence demonstrates the strong commitment of the Greek people to achieving freedom from tyranny and oppression. We can see this through Greece's steadfast support of the United States in every major struggle for freedom and democracy, including our global fight against terror. The strength of our great friendship with and the contributions to our nation made by the Hellenic community make me proud to honor such an important day in Greek history.

Our two nations are committed to the shared values of democracy, justice and freedom. Greek ideals of democracy and freedom inspired our nation's founders and helped shape the very fabric of our democratic government. Greek immigrants have been welcomed to the shores of America for generations, and we are grateful for how they have enhanced our collective culture and contributed to our country. I stand proudly with the many Hellenic-Americans in the 9th District of New Jersey and salute them and their ancestors' struggle for freedom on the anniversary of Greek Independence Day.

I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the 185th Greek Independence Day with the Hellenic community. On this day let us remember more than just Greece's independence, but also celebrate Greece as an invaluable ally and longstanding friend of all freedom-loving peoples.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Richard J. Kurtz, as he receives the prestigious Touchstone Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in Englewood, New Jersey. This award is bestowed by the Medical Center to an individual who exemplifies the premier standard for philanthropic endeavors.

Richard Kurtz, the founder of the Kamson Corporation in Englewood Cliffs, is a prominent real estate investor, developer, philanthropist, and a good friend to so many. The leadership and unwavering dedication shown by Richard to community service, humanitarian values and charitable causes is well-known, both in northern New Jersey and throughout the Nation.

Richard actively serves on many boards including the Jewish Community Center (JCC) on the Palisades, the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, and he serves as chairman of the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center Foundation. He has also given his enthusiastic and generous support to the Boy Scouts of America, Cresskill Athletic Boosters, Walk for Awareness: Our Fight Against Breast Cancer, Quest Autism Foundation and the Jewish Home at Rockleigh. Richard has given generously to his alma mater, the University of Miami, and the Katrina relief efforts. His service to these distinguished boards and causes embodies his belief in and commitment to compassion and caring for others.

Richard's devotion to his wife, Patti, his children and their spouses, Pamela Kurtz, Sharon and Jeff Kurtz, and Kimberly and Joseph Spadaccini, and six grandchildren is a reflection of this dedicated family man and community leader. Richard is an extraordinary individual, and he is very deserving of the renowned honor embodied by the Touchstone Award. I am pleased to extend my congratulations to my good friend Richard Kurtz and his family on this wonderful occasion.