Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, never would I have thought that defending the Constitution would be so lonely a job on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Do not get me wrong, I believe in decency and Mary Poppins and all things nice; but what is at stake here is freedom of speech and the assault thereon. I become more and more concerned about the concentration of the media in the hands of so few players, that kind of media power concentrated in the hands of so few and influenced specifically by the far right wing and religious right in this country. We talk about the President and the Presidency, and we say that the President has a bully pulpit, and he does. That does not concern me. What concerns me is the bullyism and the bullying that is going on. When networks and stations and people-owned medias are afraid to be critical of the administration, to impose a fine on speech that you do not like of a half a million dollars a shot, multiplied by 30 or 300 stations, does not have a chilling effect. It has a freezing-out effect where people will be afraid to speak out. It is not for us to put limits on free speech. The public decides what they want to listen to and wants to hear. They can change the channel, they can change the station, they can turn it off. To talk about motherhood and breast feeding as something that is good is fine, but people are offended by a breast? Is that obscene? Maybe it was in poor taste at the time, but is it obscene? That Howard Stern on the radio would be threatened with extinction from broadcast because he did not hang up in time on somebody that called in, that was not the issue. The issue is that he is beginning to speak out against the President and the administration, and he is paying the price because of the pressure on the media by the President and his media cronies. This concentration of the media denies the public access to the right to speak out. It is not just speech that we agree with and we think is pretty that we have to tolerate. The test of freedom of speech is if we tolerate ugly speech, obnoxious speech, and speech that we disagree with. And saying that we are protecting the country and the children, what about personal responsibility? Everybody should protect their own children from what they do not want to listen to or see. These become weapons of mass communication, and no one will own them except those who have the hands on the levers of power in the White House and their friends. That is what we find obscene? What is obscene is public officials lying to the public, lying about public policy, lying about education. It is about not providing enough money for AIDS or cancer; that is what is obscene in this country. We need people to defend our Constitution. We need people to defend freedom of speech, and that is really what is at stake here. This is going to become a very dark day in American history. We are going down the slippery slope of limiting our Constitution and the protections that it gives to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I for one will be voting against this bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman assured us at the outset of his remarks that private citizens would not be precluded from bringing private actions. It is very clear, to at least some of us who read the language of what is in the actual bill, that that is what happens, but given the chairman's genuine assurance that citizens would not be precluded, I fail to see what harm would be done if we specifically say that people have a right to bring action against those companies that knowingly and willfully sell meat from diseased fallen animals to the consuming public.

Mr. ACKERMAN. It certainly does. That is exactly the point of this amendment the gentleman is speaking on.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would then ask, Why is the gentleman protecting companies that allow that?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and then again, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, although very knowledgeable, may very well be wrong. I am holding the page with the very lines that he asked me to refer to, and what it basically does is it refers to government action, government action against those companies, not individual actions of those people. The government is not getting sick or certainly not getting sicker from eating the meat of diseased animals, but human beings are denied under this, not the government. Human beings who have eaten diseased meat from downed animals have no recourse under the law the way this is written. Yes, if a person gains weight, and some of us have done that, from eating wrong and indulging a little bit too much, sometimes that evidence is all too evident, but when a person eats the meat of a diseased animal, they have already eaten the evidence, and the case is difficult enough to prove. People have no protection, no ability to sue, and the gentleman, what he sought to do, if he rereads what he has asked me to do, he will see very, very clearly that they are not exempted from government action, but they are still protected from private citizens bringing private courses of action.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the USDA, which is selectively cited by the gentleman from Texas giving it such great authority, happens to be the authority that says that downed animals are 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease than ambulatory animals. There is the connection. It is not that there is no connection, it is not just that a cow fell and cannot get up and does not have a button to press. If it is a downed animal, regardless of why it is a downed animal, it is 49 percent more likely to have mad cow disease. Do Members want to play that game of Russian roulette with their children? I do not. I think others really do not, either. If Members want to protect the American people, guarantee that we are playing straight with the American people. It is their interest that we are trying to protect. For the sake of trying to make a few more pennies on the pound, you are jeopardizing the entire industry, as well as the safety of the American public.

Mr. ACKERMAN. We do not prevent it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is overlooking something. The government brings lawsuits for violation of the FDA act. Individuals cannot bring actions under the FDA act. Individuals bring civil cases under the tort laws, and that is what we are talking here. This bill allows the government to bring a lawsuit. I want Mrs. Jones to be able to bring a lawsuit because her 8-year-old son was just made brain damaged and is going to die in 3 months because he ate a hamburger that somebody knowingly sold him that came from a downed animal that had mad cow disease. They cannot do that under this act because they are not the government.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with trial lawyers or any other issue that has been basically discussed here today, but it is merely to correct what I think is an inadvertent omission in the bill. My amendment would expand the definitions in the act to exclude any establishment that manufactures or sells meat from downed animals for human consumption from the protections of the bill. Mr. Chairman, nearly 3 months have passed since the first mad cow was discovered in the United States and the very first food-related bill has reached the House floor. It is not a bill to protect the American people from mad cow disease and to safeguard the food chain, but it is instead a bill to protect lawsuits against food manufacturers for injuries related to weight gain. With America's food and meat supply at risk, it is embarrassing that this special interest legislation is our first response to reforming food safety in the United States. The USDA banned downers from the food supply noting that a non- ambulatory animal was 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease, and they issued a regulation banning it. Those who oppose this amendment will tell us that the amendment is not necessary because the bill before us already says companies that knowingly violate Federal or State law get no protection in the bill and that the USDA banned downers, but the USDA is not the Congress and a USDA ban on downers is not the law. It is merely a regulation. So this amendment is needed to make it a law, as was, I believe, intended. Otherwise, slaughterers who knowingly violate the regulation, not a law, get protection from legal action for selling diseased meat from mad cows to someone whose brain may rot some 8 years from now. In the aftermath of our first discovery of mad cow disease, Americans deserve more from Congress than just a bill preventing frivolous lawsuits which have already been successfully defeated in U.S. courts. Instead, we should be working to assure our constituents that the meat they are eating and feeding to their children is safe and free of mad cow disease. Personal responsibility, yes, add me to the long line of people who have already said that they believe in it, but people should take personal responsibility from acts that they knowingly take and knowingly violate and voluntarily take. A person cannot know that they are eating the meat of a sick animal because it is not labeled, and that is another issue. What about personal responsibilities of companies that knowingly sell meat from downers, from diseased animals, too sick to walk to the slaughter? We could take personal responsibility if the corporations took personal responsibility and put labels that said the meat we are eating is from a diseased downed cow or that the meat we are about to eat had a 99 percent chance of never being inspected. According to a Consumers Union poll, seven in 10 Americans who eat meat say they would pay more for beef to support increased testing in the cattle, and in a Zogby poll, three out of four Americans find it unacceptable to have downed animals in our food system. In fact, the USDA tells us that it was a downed animal from Washington State that proved positive for mad cow disease this past December, and early last year in Canada, the infected mad cow was also a downed animal. That is not a coincidence. The USDA ban on slaughtering downed animals for human consumption is based on sound science and is nearly identical to the Ackerman- LaTourette amendment that failed just three votes short of passage in this House in the past summer, and that was before the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States. Surely there are three more people in this House who now better understand this issue. Mr. Chairman, we should not be passing bills to protect the irresponsible establishments that may knowingly sell meat from sick and fallen animals. This amendment would ensure that manufacturers and sellers who ignore the proven health risks from downed animals who ignore the USDA ban, not a law, and sell tainted meat from downed animals to the American public, are not protected from lawsuits under this Act. I do not believe that was the intention. Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for this issue. This issue is so ripe it is beginning to get rotten. The American people deserve better than that, Mr. Chairman, and this Congress has the opportunity to act right now to do the right and proper thing to protect all of our constituents from an inadvertency that occurs within this bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman would have it both ways. First the claim is that my amendment is redundant, the bill already does what it does. Now the gentleman is saying that it guts the bill. How can it be redundant and gut the bill?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Under this gentleman's thinking, that beloved animal of that little boy who has shown him all around, if he falls and breaks his leg, that animal should be treated humanely and humanely slaughtered which would prevent it from being sold to the public.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me suggest to your very sanctimonious self that it was the chairman of this very committee that said my amendment was redundant. The author of the bill, rather, who said that the amendment was redundant, that what I am trying to do is already in the bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am trying not to be insulted by being accused of having a foolish and ridiculous amendment. I am sure the gentleman is insulting the amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me. The gentleman from Iowa took it upon himself to speak for the Founding Fathers, which gives me the initiative to speak for the founding mothers. I think they would be aghast to see that this Congress is looking to protect rather prurient corporate interests at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. It is not about protecting pigs, my colleague. It is about protecting people. And I say to the gentleman from Iowa, as well as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, who has had many discussions with me on this issue, that the Ackerman amendment does not take away anybody's right to sue. It does not give anybody, as the gentleman asserted, the right to sue. People have a right to sue now. That is the status quo under the American system of jurisprudence. You can bring a lawsuit. What the Ackerman amendment attempts to do is to prevent what the opposition is trying to do, and that is to provide an escape clause for those corporations who say it is a regulation, not a law; and, therefore, we are exempt from lawsuits. The bill before us protects those people who knowingly and willfully sell bad meat to good people and says the public cannot sue them. The government can bring action for violating the FDA law, but people cannot sue under this provision. It is appalling to think of who we are protecting here. I would have thought that those who represent the States that have cattle and pigs, and so many people make an important living from livestock, would understand the magnitude of the damage that they are doing to their own industry and their own constituencies. The world does not believe what they are saying, that the American food is the safest food in the world. You have lost billions of dollars. The Japanese will not eat American hamburgers, and they are the ones who have been buying it all over the world. Europeans test every cow before they put it on the market. America, with all our wealth, cannot do that to protect our own people, and my colleagues' constituents are paying the price. Billions of dollars you have cost them. Wake up. The American people do not want to eat this meat. And it is not because they are just a bunch of animal lovers. They will eat meat if they know that it is safe. And it is your job to protect that industry as well as the public. And the way to do that is to keep the deck honest; to allow people to bring a lawsuit if they think harm was done to them and do not exclude the industry and those who knowingly and willfully sell products that are tainted to the public. How can one exercise personal responsibility if you do not know the facts? There is no label on your hamburger that says that this hamburger came from a diseased or downed cow. People would not eat it, and you know that. It is a charade that we are playing here. This has nothing to do with trial lawyers. This is a simple amendment that closes an escape clause that I believe, with all due respect, was inadvertently created by an oversight, regardless of your feeling on trial lawyers or anything else. And I should make it clear, talking about pigs, that my amendment does apply to all livestock, not just cattle. The gentleman from Texas is right because all livestock, cattle, sheep and pigs can bear the animal form of mad cow that can be passed on.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 15 and congratulate my colleague Mr. Wilson of South Carolina for his sponsorship of the resolution. Madam Speaker, the resolution before us today commends India on its celebration of Republic Day and urges continued strong bilateral relations between the United States and India. But there is much more to celebrate than simply India's Republic Day. There are the commonalities between the U.S. and India, in particular both are thriving multi-cultural democracies. India is the largest and the U.S. is the oldest. This year both nations are in the midst of the great democratic tradition of elections. India's elections begin later this month and run through the beginning of April. Beyond our common experiences with democracy, the United States and India have been growing ever closer over the last several years. Beginning with President Clinton's trip to India in 2000, the U.S.- India relationship has truly blossomed over the last several years. In the immediate aftermath of the horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, India was the first nation to step forward and offer unqualified support and assistance to us. Just a few months later, India suffered a devastating attack in the heart of its democracy, the parliament building in New Delhi. These events underscore the fact that both nations have faced, and continue to face, serious threats from global terrorist organizations. These unfortunate events have led to a significant expansion of the U.S.-India relationship into areas where our two nations had not previously cooperated: defense and counter-terrorism. Evidence of the new and intense level of cooperation in these areas can be found in the most recent joint exercises between air force units of the United States and India in central India just last month. On the other aspects of our relationship, like the newly announced U.S.-India Strategic Partnership and a steady stream of senior level visits in both capitals speak volumes regarding the robust nature of our relationship. So it is only fitting Mr. Speaker, that the Congress, join the chorus of voices in recognizing that the oldest and largest democracies are on a new and welcome path bilaterally. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of the House an important event in my district: the groundbreaking for the Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck on December 14, 2003. I want to offer my best wishes and congratulations to all the men and women who have contributed their time, energy and support to bring this tremendous project into being. America and New York in particular have been blessed by a growing number of Jews of Iranian descent, who have made an enormous contribution to the health and vitality of our Jewish community. Owing to their bitter experience as a persecuted religious minority in Iran, they--more than most--have come to understand the meaning of the prophet Jeremiah, ``If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up. . . .'' The expansion of this community's physical presence through the construction of this center is a sign of continuing growth and maturity, and one which I happily encourage. Mr. Speaker, as always, breaking ground on a new religious center is a joyous event. Such structures are gifts to the future and expressions of our most admirable goals for our posterity. The Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck will include classrooms and a playground for children, a youth center for young adults, a recreational lounge to accommodate social, cultural, and educational programs for the community seniors, and other spaces available to host all those events which connect individuals and families to their community. This center will be built with love, dedication, determination and an abiding faith in the future of the Jewish people. In short, it will be a center that reflects the values of the people who built it. Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish faith, when a book of study is completed, the accomplishment is celebrated by offering encouragement to immediately return to the work ahead. The groundbreaking of the Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck is a great step forward, a real achievement. But it is a step which only promises greater things. In the days ahead, I know the whole House will join me in saying ``Chazak! Chazak! v'Nitchazayk!'' (Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!)