Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, today the House has an opportunity to make an historic choice of great proportions. For 30 years, Mr. Chairman, U.S. policy toward India has been defined and constrained by our insistence on punishing India for its sovereign decision not to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The truth be told, had India conducted its nuclear tests earlier, it would have been treated the way we treat France and Britain and Russia and China and ourselves. In short, it would have been grandfathered in as a member of the nuclear weapons club. But they did not test earlier, and they have been treated differently. And nothing that we have tried over the last three decades has convinced them to give up their nuclear status, and nothing that we would say over the next three decades would convince them, either. The time has come for the United States to deal with the reality of South Asia as it is and not as a fanciful wish. India lives in a difficult neighborhood, next to Pakistan, which continues to produce nuclear weapons unchecked, and China, whose commitment to a fissile material cutoff is suspect, at best. If India didn't exist in that neighborhood, we would have to invent them. India has been a responsible nuclear power and deserves to be treated that way. The bill before us does just that. Critics have expressed concerns regarding the bill's impact on our nonproliferation policy; and, clearly Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are looking for clues as to what it means for them and their nuclear programs. What do you tell Pakistan and Iran and North Korea? Well, you tell them this: If you want to be treated like India, be like India. Be a responsible international actor with regard to weapons of mass destruction technologies. Don't sell your nuclear technologies to the highest bidder. Don't provide it to terrorists. Be a democracy, a real democracy like India, and work with us on important foreign policy objectives and not against us. Iran and North Korea signed the NPT and are now running away from their freely entered into obligation and away from IAEA inspections. India did not sign the NPT, and yet is embracing the IAEA and embracing global nonproliferation. India's attitude should be recognized and commended and congratulated. There are two options before us today: One, don't pass the bill. We do that, and we allow India to pursue its national interests unimpeded, as it has been doing outside of the nonproliferation mainstream. The other is to make a deal with India and give to the United States and the international community a window in perpetuity into two-thirds of India's nuclear facilities and all of its future nuclear facilities, under safeguards, in compliance, transparent. I think the choice is clear: If you want the IAEA to inspect India's civilian nuclear facilities, then you are for the bill. If you want India to be obligated to adhere to the missile technologies control regime for the first time, then you are for the bill. If you want them to comply for the first time with the nuclear suppliers' groups guidelines for the first time, then you are for the bill. If you want to send a clear message to nuclear rogue states about how to behave, then you are for the bill. And, if you want a broad, deep, and enduring strategic relationship with India, then you are for the bill. Mr. Chairman, it is time for a 21st century policy towards India, one that supports and encourages India's emergence as a global, responsible power and solidifies U.S.-India bilateral relations for decades to come. The bill before us today is that new policy. I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5682.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank Mr. Lantos for his leadership, along with Representative Leach for everything that he has done on this issue, and Congressman Wilson as well; and my cochair of the India Caucus, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her great leadership, and I especially single out Mr. Crowley of New York for his role in bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, sadly on July 11, 2006, we have a date which will join the litany of the all-too-familiar terrorist attacks, along with the July bombings in London last year, the Madrid bombings in 2004, the Bali bombings in 2002, and, of course, the September 11 attacks on us. What is also sad is this is not the first time Mumbai has been attacked. In fact, Mumbai has suffered from terrorist attacks since 1993. Indeed, India itself has been the victim of various forms of terrorism since its founding. Last week's bombings are simply a continuation of India's ongoing struggle with terrorists. Eight bombs were planted by terrorists in the western commuter railway in Mumbai on July 11. Seven of them exploded. They were timed for the height of the rush hour, with the obvious premeditated intent to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. The resulting explosions left as many as 200 innocent people dead and over 700 people wounded. The response by the authorities and the people of Mumbai to aid the wounded and comfort the families and friends was extraordinary. The bombings horrified decent people everywhere and were condemned by leaders from all over the globe, including the G-8. Terrorism is a disease. It is a cancer on the body of humanity, and all nations that oppose terrorism should work shoulder to shoulder to make sure that this scourge is not just cured, but eliminated. The Government of India has long recognized this truth, and in the wake of September 11, 2001, and its attacks on the United States, India was indeed the first nation to step forward and offer its assistance to our Nation. Let us do the same for India. Let us be prepared not just to offer our condolences and sympathy, but our renewed and reinvigorated commitment to defeating terrorism globally. I thank the Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to stand with India against terrorism and to support them and this resolution.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of S. 2754, the Alternative Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I think we can all agree that stem-cell research holds tremendous promise for advances in health care for all Americans. Stem-cell research may one day lead to treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal-cord injuries, Lou Gehrig's disease, strokes, severe bums and many more diseases and injuries. However, Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the President made a self- serving and shortsighted decision to limit federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to stem-cell lines that already existed. At that time, on August 9, 2001, the President promised 78 stem-cell lines would be available to federal researchers, yet five years later, there are at most, only 22 lines available. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, many of these lines are contaminated with animal cells that make them unusable for human-therapeutic study. So, Mr. Speaker, here we are half a decade later, and we are considering S. 2754 and another Republican bill, S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, these proposals are nothing but a smoke screen; they were introduced to give political cover to Republican members who didn't vote for the embryonic stem-cell bill. I have no problem with measures that would encourage development of stem-cell lines from nonembryonic methods and prohibit embryo implantation for the purpose of deriving stem-cell lines. However, the real issue here is the President's policy that has prohibited federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research. Let me be clear, neither of these Republican-sham bills is in any way a viable alternative to the measure the House passed last year, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. That legislation would allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem-cell lines regardless of the date on which they were derived. Researchers and scientists would be eligible to utilize their federal funds for research on a new stem-cell line as long as their work met the strict ethical guidelines contained in the bill. Those rules restrict stem- cell lines to embryos that were created originally for fertility purposes, and that are no longer needed. This legislation will take the President's political shackles off our researchers and scientists and allow them to expand the number of stem-cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. The Senate has finally acted, passing H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, this afternoon. So, there is now, finally, a historic opportunity to fund research that holds incredible promise, that could lead to incredible medical breakthroughs. So, what does the President do? He pledges yet again to veto embryonic stem-cell research legislation. How out of touch can he be? Mr. Speaker, the President has promised to veto hope; hope for the millions of Americans who have cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease or diabetes or Parkinson's disease. He has promised to veto hope for victims of cancer and Alzheimer's disease. I am shocked but not surprised that President Bush has said that his very first veto will be to block this legislation. As usual, President Bush and his rightwing Republican allies are way out on the political margins. So, if you're counting votes Mr. President, mine will be to override. My vote will be for all those Americans who want us to put their needs first, and political paybacks, second. I will vote to override the President's shameful veto when the House again takes up H.R. 810, and I urge all my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. This vote is the key vote showing whether Congress is genuinely committed to effective federally funded embryonic stem-cell research, and most of all, restoring hope to millions of sick Americans.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter, but the eloquence of the gentlewoman from California and the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from California have moved me to stand up and say a few words. I do not know why in a pluralistic society, in a great democracy that we are, that we have become, that we continue to be, that we look to find things and issues to divide us rather than to unite us. I am not of the Christian faith. Christian symbols do not offend me. They stand for things that are good and decent and pure and idealistic, and I think that is wonderful. But to make them the symbol of something public is something that I do find offensive. We talk about so often our Judeo-Christian heritage. I am not sure what that means exactly. I know it means that somebody is reaching out to try to include me and my small faith when they want to look pluralistic. I know that my dad fought in World War II. I know that I had relatives who went to Canada to join the Royal Mounted Police because they were in World War II fighting the Nazis before the United States of America did. I know that people of all faiths of this great Nation died in that war and all other wars that we fought, and continue to die today as you read the list of people coming back, tragically killed by terrorists. I do not know why we have to put a religious symbol on the entire monument. There is nothing wrong with the crucifix in the hands of whoever wants to hold it, even in Statuary Hall. Nobody is saying remove that cross. That is an individual sign of faith, not a collective societal sign of faith. The gentleman from California justifies it by saying it is a symbol of our heritage. I beg to differ. It is not a collective symbol of our heritage because it is not the symbol of my heritage, though I respect it as a symbol of somebody else's heritage. And if, indeed, the only symbol up there was a statue of Buddha or a Muslim symbol or a Jewish Star of David, I would object as strenuously. If you cannot represent all religions, then represent no religion. They did not die in a crusade. It was not a religious Korean war. Why put the symbol of Christianity or any other religion there? Make it a monument for people who fought and died for freedom of liberty, who died for freedom of religion, who died for people's ability to express themselves in a free society. That was the intent, and I think that is something we would all be proud of, and we are proud of the veterans.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an old photograph, tattered and torn. Its color is sepia, indicating that it is over 90 years old, and it hung on the wall in my mom's apartment. She would point it out to me when I was a little boy and say, ``This was your grandmother, who you never knew. It is a picture of their wedding.'' And the little children who sat in front of this wedding portrait were 5, 6, 7, 8 years old, a lot of little kids, and she said, pointing to one of them, ``This is my Aunt Rachel,'' and to another she said, ``This is my Uncle Joseph.'' I was tiny. I didn't understand. I said, ``Mom, how can that be your aunt and uncle? They are only children.'' And she said, ``They will always be children.'' I didn't understand quite what she was getting at until I was quite a bit older. When World War II broke out, there were 1.6 million Jewish children throughout Europe. At the end of the Holocaust, that number became under 100,000. The Jewish people were almost eradicated from the face of the Earth by the people of the National Socialist Party of Germany, the Nazis, who were intent on wiping the Jews from the face of the Earth, claiming they had no right to live, no right to exist, in their country or anyplace else, and set out on a pogrom. They were nearly successful. Nobody came to the aid of the Jewish people. People were put in gas chambers, their bodies burnt in ovens by the millions throughout the world. Nobody came to their aid. Nobody cared. The annihilation of an entire people by people who were pure evil. It wasn't until the end of the war when the Jewish people and others who were in these concentration camps saw their first Americans and America's allies when they were liberated from those camps, alive because of happenstance and circumstance. Our good friend, Tom Lantos, and his wife, Annette, a distinguished moral force in our Congress, is alive today along with his wife as the beneficiary of a noble act of Christian charity by somebody who was a stranger. The luck of the draw. The Jewish people weren't even organized enough to fight. They weren't fighters. They didn't know any better. They had no country. They were scattered. The world looked at them at the end of the war and said we have to do something about this, and they took the area of Transjordan and they divided it and created the country of Jordan and the country of Israel, a Jewish state, so Jews could have a place to be where they could live safely within secure borders. And I know many things have happened and part of those borders are disputed today, but that is beside the point. Suddenly in this very day and age, what seems to be eons from the Nazis and that era, another people rise up and make claim to the world out loud, clearly and unambiguously, that the Jewish people have no right to be anywhere; that they will wipe them from the region, kill them, eradicate them, and drive them from the planet. No different than the Nazis. Now, those of my friends with such good intentions, and there are some here and I have spoken to them and I have listened to them, who talk about proportionality, who talk treating everybody equal, who talk about measured response, who talk about a cease-fire and going back to the status quo, they are well-intentioned, but I want them to look me in the eye and tell me what a proportional response means. How do you negotiate with somebody whose goal is your eradication? Take half my family? Kill every other one of us? What is there to negotiate? Do we tell the victim of a violent crime that they have no right to fight back as forcefully as they can? Do we tell the rape victim that she has no right to fight with all her strength against the accused rapist? Nonsense. We don't tell that to any other country. And there is only one Jewish state on the planet. Don't tell that to Israel. People of the Jewish faith and everybody else living in Israel have the right to exist, the same right as anybody else, and they have that right to respond. How can you deny that? Thank God Israel doesn't stand alone anymore. It has one good friend in this whole world, and that is this United States. And we are so thankful for that. I am very pleased with this resolution. It does have the right balance. Innocent people die in wars. Not every German was a Nazi, and yet we had to fight them because they represented the Nazis. They put them in power. They elected them in a democratic election. Elections have consequences. Just because you participate in an electoral process doesn't absolve of you of your crimes or your sins, especially if you rededicate yourself to them. That is what we are facing right now. I urge your serious consideration of this resolution and all that it implies. Justice demands no less.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who has been one of the paramount leaders in this fight.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their assistance in getting this resolution through the committee, and especially note the hard work and determination of my colleague, the chairperson of the subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. Their support is deeply appreciated. Mr. Speaker, there are very, very few issues that are really just black and white, where there are good guys and there are bad guys. This struggle, the 60-year effort to win membership for Israel's humanitarian society, the Magen David Adom, Israel's Blue Shield of David, into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, has been such an enterprise. Like all of my colleagues speaking in support of this resolution, I am honored to have been part of that struggle, and am deeply gratified by the clear, indeed overwhelming victory MDA won last month in Geneva. It is a triumph where humanitarian principles overranked politics and bigotry. It is a triumph for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. It is a triumph for patient, cooperative, multilateral diplomacy and especially American leadership. The victory of MDA really illustrates how important American leadership is, and what this Nation can accomplish with determination, tenacity, and a commitment to holding and protecting the moral high ground in international debate. There never was a good argument against MDA. And with that fact came the moral strength and clarity. And with that strength and clarity came this hard-won victory. As Dr. Martin Luther King liked to say, the arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. A lot of people earned a share of the success that occurred in Geneva. Many of us in the House wrote letters, spoke directly with the Red Cross officials in Europe and with officials within the administration to let them know that Congress backed them 100 percent. All we asked in return was, What more we could do to help? Credit is also due to America's diplomats and to America's humanitarians. Secretary Rice's State Department showed again what a force American diplomacy can be in a righteous cause. And the American Red Cross, the American Red Cross alone in the entire world drew a line in the sand, withholding $45 million in dues to the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies until the MDA won equal treatment. Only the American Red Cross was willing to put its money where its mouth was and to insist that international humanitarian law should not, could not, and now thankfully cannot be used as a tool of discrimination against Israel. This resolution congratulates Israel on the Magen David Adom Society, which is facing a terrible trial right now, with terrorist rockets falling both in northern and southern Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both. The Magen David Adom stands for everything Hezbollah and Hamas reject, the independence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, equal treatment and protection for all people, regardless of their faith, and the belief that there are standards of behavior beyond the realm of political convenience, and above all, the value of life over death. Mr. Speaker, in the business of international politics and diplomacy, clear-cut triumphs are few and far between. I am thrilled to be able to celebrate with you today what a bipartisan, bicameral, cross-branch, multinational, public-private effort can do. But what we are here to celebrate principally is a high moral triumph. I want to thank all of those who helped bring us to this great day and to the Magen David Adom, I say yasher koach, and congratulations on this well-deserved and long-overdue victory. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and thank her for her leadership in this effort as well.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and thank him not just for his leadership but for his life-long commitment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for all of her efforts. I want to especially single out the hard work of my good friend and colleague from Texas, Silvestre Reyes, for his steadfast efforts to help the Clint Independent School District improve the quality of education for its students. Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to correct a technical error in legislation which the 105th Congress passed. That legislation should have relinquished the Federal Government's reversionary interest in a tract of land that is owned by the Clint Independent School District. Unfortunately, the wrong coordinates for the land were included in the bill. This bill, H.R. 860, completes the transfer of property rights for the school district so that it can proceed with a planned sale of the land. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 860. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend and thank my good friend and colleague from New York, Carolyn McCarthy, for sponsoring this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, our intervention in Iraq and its aftermath have not been without controversy, but there are some developments there that I know every Member of this body is happy to embrace. Radio Al Mahaba represents just such a development. Radio Al Mahaba is a unique phenomenon in the Middle East, a radio station for women dealing with issues of interest to women, and, more importantly, run by women. In a society where a majority of women are illiterate, radio is a vital means of imparting information. Of course, female illiteracy is a problem in virtually every state in the Islamic Middle East, which is precisely why Radio Al Mahaba is a model for the region. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that Radio Al Mahaba is a fully independent radio station, both politically and religiously. It is surely one of the few Iraqi radio stations, some say the only one, that can be described in that way. Mr. Speaker, Radio Al Mahaba was founded 1 year ago with a $500,000 grant from the United Nations Development Fund for Women. It started out broadcasting 6 hours a day; and as a result of its incredible popularity, it was up to 16 hours a day very soon thereafter. Unfortunately, it was forced to cut back after terrorists destroyed its transmitter. Nonetheless, Al Mahaba carries on. Radio Al Mahaba is a beacon of free expression for Iraqi women, and it has the potential to make a remarkable contribution to the political and cultural growth of Iraqi society as a whole. It deserves the support of every Member of this body, as does the resolution commending its work. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge all of our colleagues to do likewise Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the sponsor of the resolution, Carolyn McCarthy.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Engel and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I'd like to express our shock and horror at the death of Alan Senitt in Washington, DC, early yesterday morning. Each of us came to know Alan as a staffer for Lord Greville Janner of Braunstone, United Kingdom. Lord Janner is a leader in European efforts to fight anti-Semitism and racism, and is the founding chairman of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians, an organization of which we are all members. Alan played a critical role in helping to bring this organization into existence. Alan was a kind, dedicated and good person, a young man with enormous potential and great hopes for trying to build a better world. Alan devoted himself to a life in politics and intercommunal dialogue because he understood that it is only by effort and commitment that the wounds of our world can be knit up. In a life of only 27 years, Alan was a dynamic student leader, an energetic voice for British Jewry and pro-Israel advocacy, a talented leader in the campaign against racism and bigotry, and a candidate for public office. The future he was so brutally denied would surely have been no less full of struggle, achievement and success. His death is a tragic loss for each of us, the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, his wide circle of friends and, most of all, his family. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Senitt family: his parents, Karen and Jack, and his siblings, James and Emma, who have been so cruelly robbed of their son and brother. Alan leaves behind a legacy of compassion, vitality, good works and a vast potential tragically curtailed. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our troops in the field and the belief that the United States will ultimately prevail in the global war on terror and against this partisan, transparent, cynical, and divisive resolution. Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in today is not a serious debate about the progress of the war in Iraq or alternatives to achieve the victory there that we all seek. If it were not a sham, Members would be able to offer amendments. We would be able to vote up and down on our future course in Iraq. What we have here, instead, is more unamendable, arrogant, Republican take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are fighting and dying, and the American people are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are here patting ourselves on the back instead of doing effective oversight. This Republican Congress has abdicated that responsibility and continues to whitewash an incompetent, dysfunctional Republican administration. I would like to be clear, Mr. Speaker. Just because I am for oversight doesn't mean that I hate freedom. Just because I am for tracking how billions of dollars have been wasted and misspent or stolen doesn't mean I don't support our troops. And just because people question the competence of the President and his administration doesn't mean that they are not patriots. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I don't think you can be a patriot if you just rubber stamp, if you turn a blind eye and bury your head in the sand as war profiteers run off with the money needed to protect the troops and to reconstruct a broken country. Instead of discussing the difficult and costly work necessary to achieve that victory, our Republican friends have simply decided to move directly to this victory party and 10 hours of cheerleading. This resolution begins and ends declaring our ultimate victory against terrorists, and in between we sing our own praises. This is actually a prayer. Prayer is good. But what we need is a plan. All we are doing here is whistling past a growing graveyard. What is more notable about the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is what it doesn't say. There is no mention of the world class bait-and-switch lie that got us into this mess in the first place. No mention of the lie of the stockpiles of weapons that the Vice President swore were absolutely there. No mention about the lie that the stockpiles of weapons of which Secretary Rumsfeld knew the exact location. No mention of oil. No mention of the intelligence either. In fact, there is not even the words ``weapons of mass destruction.'' How can you have such a resolution without that? And Osama bin Laden. Not only can't we find him in the region but we can't even find his name hinted at in this resolution. The debate is a whitewash, and this resolution is a coverup. Vote against this charade. Vote against the premature victory party. Vote against this resolution and let us have a real debate about our policy options and our future course and involvement in Iraq.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should regard this as punitive. We should regard this as a signal coming from a friend. Mr. Obey, I think as a lifelong friend of Egypt as am I, would probably as ranking member, or perhaps as chairman, would be the first person to rush to the floor to restore those funds and then some, should Egypt understand this message and rectify its ways and move in a direction that is within its own interests.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with Ranking Member Lowey and Chairman Kolbe. The report accompanying H.R. 5522, the Foreign Options Appropriations Act, includes language encouraging the consideration of a proposal from the Gift of Life International for Project Iraqi Hearts, a program that will provide life-saving open heart surgery to Iraqi children that they cannot get at home. I have been an advocate of the Gift of Life Program since 1983 when I worked with then-First Lady Nancy Reagan, to arrange for a young boy and girl from South Korea to come to the United States by way of Air Force One for a life saving open heart surgery. Supported by 50 Rotary Districts every year, the Gift of Life International transports to the United States and surgically operates on over a thousand children from all over the developing world. Through the efforts of our military personnel serving in Iraq, the Gift of Life has now identified at least 1,500 children that have been diagnosed as suffering from congenital heart defects that will be fatal if left untreated. The Gift of Life has a terrific track record on our Nation's reputation in Iraq. It could certainly use a little boost from a program like this. While specific funds have not been set aside in the text of the bill, I would like the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee to confirm their interest in the program and to reiterate their support through consideration of this initiative by the Department of State and USAID.

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Obey-Hyde-Lantos amendment. Mr. Chairman, in years past on this floor and in committee I have noted Egypt's central role in the Middle East peace efforts and that without those efforts we would have been even further away from peace than we are. That is, I believe, still true today. And clearly Egypt played an important part of Israel's successful disengagement from Gaza last year, but as central as the Egyptian role in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is and as helpful as Egypt has been with ship transits through the Suez and flights over the Suez Canal in support of our efforts in Iraq, in regional peace and security, is not the only agenda that we have with Egypt. President Bush has called for democratic transformation as a response to the rise of Islamic extremists in the Arab world. In Egypt, the response to that call has been decidedly mixed. Clearly, last year's presidential elections which for the first time featured more than one candidate on the ballot were a departure from the past practice of an up or down vote on President Mubarak and were a positive step forward. However, the Egyptian parliamentarian elections in December were marred with violence, voter intimidation and allegations of fraud as the ruling party sought to hold not just its majority in the assembly but its overwhelming majority. While some will point out that a large number of opposition candidates who want seats, the real concern is that so many of them are affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood. No doubt the Egyptian government will look at these results and say again that political reform must proceed slowly. I would argue that these results are of the government's own making. It is not democratic reform that produced these results, but the lack of political space for legitimate secular parties to function within Egyptian society. By denying that space, by arresting judges and journalists, by prosecuting legitimate opposition political leaders, by beating demonstrators, by extending the emergency law, the government of Egypt makes more likely the political result that they most fear, a future government of Egypt dominated by radical Islamists. The choice we have today is to do nothing and hope that with more dialogue and a little more cajoling, that we can get President Mubarak to continue on the path to reform or we can send a clear message that even appreciating how helpful Egypt is on the regional peace and security issues, the Congress will not stand silently by as government thugs beat peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Cairo and with their fists extinguish the hope of a truly moderate, secular democratic future for Egypt.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair and ranking member for their commitment to this initiative and I look forward to working with them to see if we can save some Iraqi children's lives through the Gift of Life Program.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 230 on S. 193, my vote was mistakenly recorded as ``aye'' when it should have said ``nay.''

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am continually amazed that defending our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is such a lonely job in the House of Representatives. I believe in decency and protecting children as much as any Member, but what is at stake here is freedom of speech and whether it will be nibbled to death by election-minded politicians and self-righteous pietists. If you don't believe that this so-called Broadcast Decency Act will have a chilling effect on free speech, let's take a look at a few examples of how the culture of censorship has spread to the airwaves over the past few years. Numerous ABC affiliates refused to commemorate Veteran's Day by airing the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' because they feared an FCC fine. Ironically, ABC had previously aired unedited versions of the WorId War II movie in 2001 and 2002 without incident. Many PBS stations refused to air an episode of the children's show ``Postcards with Buster'' because Buster, an 8-year-old bunny, learned how to make maple syrup from a Vermont family with two mothers. CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl because it was critical of President Bush's role in creating the Federal deficit. CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their church, and the networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air. This is how free speech dies: with the pruning of self-satisfied politicians and the whimpering of fearful citizens. These are just a few examples that occurred before this ill-conceived bill has even been signed into law. Broadcasters will certainly increase these practices and bite their tongues when ``decency'' enforcers can slap them with a $325,000 fine, multiplied by numerous stations. How much farther down the slippery slope of censorship will we slide? Even more galling is that this free-speech assault is coming from a mere fragment of the public, one organization--the Parents Television Council--representing the religious right and their far right-wing political agenda. This organization, which is responsible for 99.9 percent of the so-called indecency complaints filed with the FCC, boasts ``nearly 1 million members.'' True or not, while that may be a sizable number for an individual organization, when compared to the almost 300 million people currently living in the United States, it really amounts to a small handful of people--less than one percent. Why should this tiny population of scolds be allowed to censure what the remaining 99.66 percent of us listen to? It is not for this Congress to put limits on free speech. The public decides what they want to listen to and what they want to hear. They can change the channel, they can change the station, they can turn it off. It is not just speech that we agree with and we think is right that we have to tolerate. The true test of freedom of speech is if we tolerate ugly speech, obnoxious speech, and speech that we disagree with. We need to defend our Constitution. We need to defend freedom of speech, and that is really what is at stake here. Passing this bill is a huge mistake and this vote will mark a very dark day in American history. We are going down a slippery slope and no one can honestly say where it will stop. A vote for this bill is a frontal assault on our Constitution and the protections that it gives to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I for one will be voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and the chairman of the subcommittee for bringing this measure to the floor. As for Mr. Lantos, the distinguished ranking member, I have to say I absolutely marvel at his eloquence in the opening statement that he made. The very fact that he is, is important. The very fact that he is and is here is proof positive that if people of goodwill are determined to stand up to the forces of evil, that the forces of good can win out, and not unless that happens. And those forces of evil, whether they be called the Nazi Party or the Hamas Party, each of which came to power in uncontested democratic elections, each of which have in common the destruction of an entire people and were uncompromising in their attitude, in their philosophy, in their belief; how do we compromise with the notion of administrations and evil forces whose goal is the destruction of another people? Where do you begin to compromise unless they denounce those goals, which has not happened in either case? Mr. Speaker, with 295 cosponsors of this bill, there is not really much of a question about how the House is going to act. The bill will pass overwhelmingly. The only question is how many Members will be lured into opposition to this measure by good intentions, false claims and by shrill prophecies of doom. A ``no'' vote on this bill will not benefit the Palestinian people. Read the bill. The bill already allows humanitarian aid to flow under congressional scrutiny. And with the President's judgment, it can continue to go to nongovernmental groups. A ``no'' vote will not benefit Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The bill already creates a clear opening to keep him relevant and involved to becoming a channel for pursuing peace. A ``no'' vote will not support the peace camp in Israel. Israelis just went to the polls and put Prime Minister Olmert into power with a government that strongly supports congressional efforts to sanction and block assistance to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. I sat here in amazement as my good friend from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said things that were absolutely unbelievable. The politician people, what do they have to do with Hamas? Duh. They elected them. Elections have consequences. People have to live with that. They can't elect a terrorist government whose purpose is to destroy another people and then say they have nothing to do with it. That makes no sense at all. A ``no'' vote will not impress our allies in the Quartet either. The United States and other members of the Quartet remain in lock-step in rejecting any funding for the Hamas-led PA and are working, as this bill does, to find alternative approaches to assist the Palestinian people, and that is who we intend to help. For someone to say that the Prime Minister of Israel is going to walk down this aisle, and if he had a voting card would vote for Hamas is an absurdity. It defies the imagination. It is one of the many things that opponents of this legislation carefully, carefully constructed, have been saying mischaracterizing this bill. If you think that the Prime Minister of Israel would vote to give aid to Hamas, then you must be on another planet, and you should vote ``no.'' A ``no'' vote will do only one thing. It will give hope to the terrorist Hamas. It will give them hope that the wall of opposition in the West is cracking. It will give them hope that their embrace of terrorism will not have to be abandoned in order to govern. It will give them hope that support for Israel is not as strong as it seems. It will give them hope that with tenacity and will their terrorist objectives will succeed. No Member of this House wants to send that message. No Member of this House supports Hamas. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote will be used again and again to show that the path of Hamas is correct and that compromise will come only from the West, and there is no price to be paid by those who espouse terrorism. We cannot afford to send that message, even in the smallest, most unintentional way. Let us recall for a moment just what the international community has demanded of Hamas, three words. All Hamas has to do is to say three words: Israel, peace and agreement. Israel, Hamas has to accept the existence, just the existence, of a U.N. member state. Peace, that there has to be two states for two people and that they will live side by side in peace and agreement. Hamas has to accept the resolution of the conflict, which will only be achieved by peaceful means and that agreement will be honored. This is not a difficult list, three words. Hamas could win the international community over. Hundreds of millions of dollars would begin to flow to the Palestinian people. Salaries could be made, projects could be started, roads could be built, schools could be constructed. Before you say no, those few people in the House who will, ask yourself why they will not say those three words. Why won't they? The answer is that Hamas thinks that their religion forbids it. They believe that they are engaged in a holy war that can only be resolved with the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people and to put their population in exile or subjugation. There can be no compromise, according to them, of their view. Cease- fires, temporary borders, negotiations for Hamas or just way stations on their path to the ultimate destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. They will not waiver, and we must not waiver. Hamas has made clear again and again that they will not be held answerable for the hundreds of innocent civilians they slaughtered with bombs. They will not be held accountable for their overt racism and vile anti-Semitic bigotry. They will not be punished for all the times they shatter the fragile peace or destroy a nascent trust. All they have to do is say those three words. A ``no'' vote tells them they don't have to. A ``no'' vote says hold fast. A ``no'' vote reassures them that they will not have to say Israel, peace and agreement. Until they do, we must assure that they bear the full brunt of responsibility forever the condition of the Palestinian people. Not a humanitarian crisis, but a firm sanction of the United States against the government born of terror, bred on violence, and bound for ruin. Contrary to this leading report, this bill absolutely cannot and will not be used to deny humanitarian aid. The bill will not allow, with proper oversight, the Presidential confirmation that it serves our national security interest, continued assistance through properly screened and audited nongovernmental organizations. The bill provides a clear channel for President Mahmoud Abbas to show our continued appreciation for his vocal support for the peaceful two-state solution. This bill constitutes a carefully crafted balance. Some wanted it stronger; others wanted it more flexible. But the bill is strong enough to prevent American money from subsidizing a government run by terrorists and flexible enough to allow the administration to engage with Palestinians who are willing to seek peace. Members will have a choice. Let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and in doing so undermine the peace they seek, or stand firm against doing business as usual with a governing entity controlled by a terrorist organization. I know some Members are conflicted. There have been mixed signals, even misleading information about this legislation. I want to be perfectly clear. The pro-Israel vote is ``yes.'' The pro-Palestinian vote is ``yes.'' The pro-peace vote is ``yes.'' The pro-engagement vote is ``yes.'' I thank the House for their attention.