Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Narayan Keshavan who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. Keshavan worked for me from January of 1998 until June of 2001. During much of that time I was the Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans and Keshavan helped me stay abreast of the issues facing India and Indian-Americans and stay in contact with the vibrant community here. Keshavan had a love for two countries. His adopted home, the United States and his ancestral home, India. So few people modestly and selflessly served to help U.S.-India relations through such dramatic periods of growth and change. Keshavan was an early and vocal advocate for a different kind of relationship between the oldest and largest democracies in the world. He saw the possibility, in fact the necessity, of India and the United States working closely together well before it was evident to leaders in either country. In a clear example of bringing the two cultures closer together, Kesh was one of the Indian Americans who made the October 23, 2003 First Deepavali Event at the White House happen. Born May 31, 1950 in Hyderabad, India, Keshavan was a graduate of Andhra University (Visakahapatnam, India) where he received a BA in Pharmacy and Osmania University (Hyderabad, India) with a BA and MA in journalism. Over his impressive career as a journalist, Kesh was respected for his vision and commitment to politics and Indo-U.S. Relations. In addition to working for the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, he was the Founder and Executive Director of the Indian American Republican Council, and President of the Indian American Forum for Political Education (NYC and LI chapter). He also was a founder of the Indo-U.S. Parliamentary Forum. He served as a mentor to countless individuals of all ages and faiths, deeply touching the lives of many here and in India, even those he knew only a short time. People loved Kesh for his honesty, intelligence and humor. Kesh passed away on Thursday, November 13 after he appeared on CNN in a interview with Lou Dobbs where he defended India in the growing political issue of outsourcing. Keshavan is survived by his father and sister. I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a journalist, public servant and tireless community activist, Narayan Keshavan.

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!)

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 50th anniversary of Young Israel of New Hyde Park, the only Orthodox synagogue in northeast Queens. The synagogue, which boasts a vibrant multi-generational membership, plays a central role in increasing the presence and awareness of Orthodox Judaism in our community. For half a century, Young Israel of New Hyde Park has provided its members and visitors with many of the things that an Orthodox family looks for and needs: from classes to daily minyanim to a local Boy Scout troop. Now under the leadership of Rabbi Binyamin Hammer, the synagogue, which is just around the corner from Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Hillside Hospital and Schneider Children's Medical Center, has long been known as a place where families and friends of patients can find religious support and Shabbat and Yom Tov hospitality. To this end, a bikur cholim apartment was recently added through the purchase of a house next door to the synagogue. To date it has provided temporary lodging for people from all over the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and Canada. Those familiar with this congregation, those who, for 50 years have made it a place of civic support and spiritual development, know that Young Israel is more than just a temple--but a shul, a spiritual home, a place that reflects the highest aspirations of an ancient people living proud and free in this great nation. I commend Young Israel of New Hyde Park for its continued dedication to our community. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in congratulating the synagogue on the occasion of its 50th anniversary and in wishing Young Israel best wishes for another 50 years.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. The acting Secretary of the Army I am afraid has not gotten that particular message because in relation to right in my own district out in Hawaii, the movement of troops out of the 25th up at Schofield Barracks, out into Asia and into Iraq, the movement of Guard and Reserve troops, indicated that this was justified on the basis that if we did not fight them, presumably whoever these people are, terrorists and opposition, military opposition, fight them over there, wherever ``there'' is, that we would be fighting them here, that is to say, in the United States. The clear link there obviously is that had we not attacked Iraq, Iraq would somehow be attacking the United States, that somehow we would be the victims of an assault by Iraq or the forces of Iraq and presumably by that meaning Saddam Hussein.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, precisely my point is that it serves little good both to a sensible and reasonable and rational dialogue as to what steps we should take now with regard to our occupation in Iraq and the continuing military operations in Afghanistan, it does little good for us to engage in a dialogue in which these kinds of accusations are made or these kinds of observations such as I have just outlined: If we do not fight them there, we will have to fight them there. This is hardly worthy of the Secretary of the Army let alone any high official of the government. It is hardly worthy of anybody to say some are attacking the President for attacking terrorists. I mean it is stupid on its face to say something like that, and it is clearly meant to be provocative and political without forming any kind of an enlightenment with respect to the issues at hand. What needs to be done, and I think that the Iraq Watch that we have been engaged in these past weeks is indicative of this, that what needs to be done is to have this kind of dialogue. We do not have the hearings. We do not have the dialogue during the regular course of the day. We are getting ready to recess. The Congress is going out of business in the midst of this winter. There will be no recess in the wars. There will be no recess in the killing. There will be no recess in the wounding. There will be no recess in the political implications. I can assure the Members of that. We are reaping a whirlwind of hatred and distrust across the world such as we have not faced certainly in my memory. The United States has always represented a beacon of hope to people. In our worst excesses and in times when there has been the most argument, even within the borders of the United States as to what our policy should be or should not be, it has always at least had as our fundamental base that we were trying to do the right thing by way of our cooperation with others, by way of our respect for other people; and yet today our whole policy is we are going to do as we please. We are going to take up the issues as we see fit, and whether anybody else wants to involve themselves with us, that is tough. We do not care. That is not a foreign policy. That way lies blindness and defeat for this country.

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

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Narayan Keshavan who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. Keshavan worked for me from January of 1998 until June of 2001. During much of that time I was the Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans and Keshavan helped me stay abreast of the issues facing India and Indian-Americans and stay in contact with the vibrant community here. Keshavan had a love for two countries. His adopted home, the United States and his ancestral home, India. So few people modestly and selflessly served to help U.S.-India relations through such dramatic periods of growth and change. Keshavan was an early and vocal advocate for a different kind of relationship between the oldest and largest democracies in the world. He saw the possibility--in fact the necessity--of India and the United States working closely together well before it was evident to leaders in either country. In a clear example of bringing the two cultures closer together, Kesh was one of the Indian-Americans who made the October 23, 2003 First Deepavali Event at the White House happen. Born May 31, 1950 in Hyderabad, India, Keshavan was a graduate of Andhra University (Visakahapatnam, India) where he received a BA in Pharmacy and Osmania University (Hyderabad, India) with a BA and MA in journalism. Over his impressive career as a journalist, Kesh was respected for his vision and commitment to politics and Indo-U.S. Relations. In addition to working for the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, he was the Founder and Executive Director of the Indian-American Republican Council, and President of the Indian- American Forum for Political Education (NYC and LI chapter). He also was a founder of the Indo-U.S. Parliamentary Forum. He served as a mentor to countless individuals of all ages and faiths, deeply touching the lives of many here and in India, even those he knew only a short time. People loved Kesh for his honesty, intelligence, and humor. Kesh, passed away on Thursday, November 13 after he appeared on CNN in a interview with Lou Dobbs where he defended India in the growing political issue of outsourcing. Keshavan is survived by his father and sister. I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a journalist, public servant, and tireless community activist, Narayan Keshavan.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, every 12 minutes a woman in America dies of breast cancer. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but I am not sure that awareness is the right word. Unfortunately, many of us are painfully aware. Many, if not all of us have known someone who has fought against this devastating disease. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the many soldiers in the battle against breast cancer. There are too many to name right now, but their dedication and tireless efforts are critical and so deeply appreciated by us all. A recent study found that the presence of mutated BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes made cancer risk soar. This information proves that passage of legislation such as the Genetic Non-Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act is imperative. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which has 230 cosponsors. By not acting on this legislation, we are placing women's health in jeopardy on a daily basis. Women are not being tested because they fear they will be discriminated against by their insurer should they test positive. This is unconscionable. This body has begun the job of funding the National Institutes of Health and cancer research over the past five years. However, our work is not done. It is imperative that we are able to fund new research and continue existing research. In order to ensure that progress is not lost and valuable information left uncovered, we must continue to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. One of the things I am most proud to have motivated and enacted was the establishment of the Long Island Breast Cancer Study, a comprehensive effort to investigate whether environmental factors are responsible for breast cancer. The historic investigation began in 1993, and was coordinated by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. When the study was released late last year, I was disappointed to find the study could not identify specific environmental factors from among the three compounds studied as a cause for breast cancer. Many of the other compounds remain to be ruled out; more funding and research are necessary. However, the lessons learned proved very important. Many of the results provided clues for future research. We must build on this information, we must try until we succeed because the alternative is much more costly. We need to work together to turn ``A-wareness'' into ``A-cure.''

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this. In listening and thinking this through, I feel compelled to take the well. I am one of the few on this side of the aisle that voted with President Bush the first time, as well as this President Bush, because I thought it was important, the right thing to do, that those of us who have said ``never again'' to tyrants must protect not just ourselves, but other people as well, and step up to the plate, and that it would be sinful not to do what we have to do in ridding the world of a tyrant. I am not sorry that I participated in that, because, indeed, it was the right thing to do, and remains so. But things have happened and things have changed as we watch what has evolved, as we watch an administration that ran for office and continually talked about bringing morality back to government and taking personal responsibility, and suddenly seeing the evolving of what has happened here, which is truly mind-boggling. Personal responsibility. Who knew what in the White House and when? Personal responsibility. Things starting to go wrong. Where is the plan? Those of us who supported the action always said we were going to win the war. There was no doubt about it. You could not find an oddsmaker in Las Vegas to say that Saddam Hussein was going to win the war. The day, the amount of time, the casualties, that was always a question. But the question that we pressed in the Committee on International Relations was, can you win the peace? What we have here is a Secretary of War who has now become the Secretary of Peace, and he does not know how to do it. The President stood here in this House and said to us Members of both bodies assembled, ``British intelligence tells us this.'' I think it is what Nixon called ``plausible deniability.'' I never heard a President say someone else's intelligence told us this. He was warned. He was warned by the CIA Director that that intelligence was wrong. Blame the British. Blame the CIA Director. Blame the brave men in the Navy on the Abraham Lincoln. What happened to personal responsibility? Where is the plan? We have been deceived; we have been lied to, we in the Congress and the American people as well, and that is intolerable. People took the oath of office to tell the truth. Where is the truth? Indeed, this is a dilemma. We have so many American lives on the line in that country, but the President owes us a plan. A company declares bankruptcy for a half a million dollars, they have to have a plan. For $87 billion, there should be a plan. What is the plan? Nobody knows the plan. ``Trust us.'' Well, I have run out of trust in this administration. I do not mind that the emperor has no clothes; I mind that the emperor does not have a plan, because lives are at stake. We want to protect our troops. Bring back a bill that would protect the troops. We are not going to leave them hanging out there. But to spend $87 billion, and nobody knows how, nobody knows why, nobody knows where, nobody knows when, is something that is absolutely unconscionable, and something in which I can no longer participate. I will be voting no.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of the House to a wonderful event that will occur this Friday, October 24, in my district: the 50th anniversary and rededication of Temple Emanuel of Great Neck. This synagogue, since its founding, has been a vital force in my community, instilling hope, providing opportunities for prayer, education and fellowship, and acting as a vigorous agent of tzedaka, of righteousness, charity and social action. Since 1969, this energetic congregation has been led by Dr. Robert Widom, an exemplary rabbi, a community icon, a wise, decent and kind man, and, I'm proud to say, my close friend and counselor. Under his leadership, Temple Emanuel has grown, thrived and fulfilled its mission of providing a home to a dynamic liberal Judaism that promises and delivers both continuity and change. Mr. Speaker, this wonderful anniversary recalls the divine promise of redemption made by Isaiah who foresaw the restoration of the Beit HaMikdash, the holy temple in Jerusalem: ``Behold I will set down gems as your flooring stones and lay your foundation with sapphires. I will set your window frames with ruby and make your gates of carbuncle stones and your entire boundary of precious stones. All your children will be students of the Lord, and your children's peace will be abundant.'' This joyous 50th anniversary of Temple Emanuel will celebrate and amplify the echoes of the profound spirit of the Great Temple. This anniversary will rightfully celebrate the creation, half a century ago, of a place for Jews to join together to commune with God, to ask for atonement and to celebrate the holidays and mitzvot established in the Torah. For a generation, Temple Emanuel has been the place for hundreds of Jewish families to celebrate simchas, births, b'nei mitzvot, and weddings; the life events which connect individuals and families to our community and to their faith. The structure of this synagogue is not mere mortar or brick; it is not wood, stone or steel. This house of prayer, this home for a community, is founded on centuries of faith and tradition, it is built up with love and dedication, and its roof is an abiding faith in the promise made to King Solomon so long ago. Even as this congregation has matured, this structure of spirit has not aged. Those of us who know this congregation, who know the people who, for 50 years have made it hum with activity and life and spirit, we know it's not just a temple, it's not just a synagogue: It's a shul, a spiritual home, a place that reflects the highest aspirations of an ancient people living proud and free in this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish tradition, when a book of study is completed, traditionally we celebrate the success by offering encouragement to immediately return to the work ahead. This anniversary, this celebration of 50 years of sustaining Jewish life in a profound and modem way, is a real and deeply satisfying achievement. But it is an anniversary which only promises greater things. Mr. Speaker, the words we say are ``Chazak! Chazak! v'nitchazayk!'' Be strong! Be strong! And may you be strengthened! Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the Members of the House to stand and join me in offering Temple Emanuel a hearty yasher koach, and best wishes for the next 50 years.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise, reluctantly, in support of this supplemental appropriations bill. I do so not because the President has called us to this task, but in spite of that fact. I do so not because of my sympathy for the people of Baghdad, although I am sympathetic, but because failure is not an option. The Middle East was, before the war, it remains today, and it will be tomorrow, a region of critical importance to our Nation. We have close allies who depend on America for their freedom; we have vital economic interests; we have ongoing challenges from regimes like Iran and Syria that continue to sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. We can not walk away. I rise in support of this massive $87 billion expenditure not because it is the final step in securing Iraq, but with the knowledge that it is in fact just the one more step on a long and hard road this Congress agreed to embark upon in October of last year. If anyone here thinks we just have to swallow this one bitter pill, they are sadly deluded. Mr. Chairman, there should be no mistake: over the next few years, Iraq is going to cost this Nation billions upon billions of dollars. And because of the majority's tax-cutting fanaticism, these billions are going to come in the form of debt--to be paid by our children and our children's children. And this, because the majority party has squandered our surplus by their tax pay off to their wealthiest contributors. Nonetheless, I believe this is money that must be spent. Despite the administration's lies. Despite the President's massaging of the facts. Despite the shameful manipulation and distortion of intelligence that was used to justify the war. Despite the inept and pathetic failure of our diplomacy before the war. Despite the astonishing incompetence of our planning for after the war. Despite the stupid fantasies about an exile takeover and a speedy exit. Despite the incomprehensible pig- headedness that characterized our initial reconstruction efforts. Despite our arrogance toward the international community and so many of our allies. Despite all these appalling failures and breaches of public trust, there is still the necessity of protecting our Nation. There are still American men and women struggling to accomplish our Nation's tasks in Iraq; they need and are entitled to our support. There are still Islamist terrorists pouring into Iraq to pursue their crusade of terrorism against our Nation; they need to be stopped, they need to be destroyed. There are still millions of Iraqis who are counting on us not to abandon them to mercies of Saddam's loyalists and the invading jihadis, they need to be reassured we will not betray them. These vital tasks cannot continue without the money in this bill. In the context of September 11th can anyone really believe that abandoning Iraq would not produce a greater haven for terrorists there then the Taliban produced in Afghanistan? There is no easy way out of this. Pursuit of a quick or cheap solution is as fanciful as a mirage in the desert. The rest of the world is not going to clean up this mess. While we should aggressively pursue every avenue to involve the international community in this tremendous and critical project, we cannot expect the world to come to our rescue. The Bush Administration did our Nation a terrible disservice in conducting our international relations in such an arrogant and high-handed way. We have alienated much of the world and repairing this error, I fear, will take far longer than resolving the debts we will accumulate from rebuilding Iraq. Since 1776, our choice as Americans has always been to act, to take our fate in our own hands. We may appeal to heaven, but we should not depend on divine assistance. We may solicit the aid of allies, but we must not place our national destiny in the hands of others. We may fervently hope for success, but we cannot allow hope to be the keystone of our policies. Our Nation has been built and sustained by action, by deeds, and by hard choices. Today we are called upon to make just such a hard choice: to open the American treasury to rebuild a defeated nation, and to pile up debt upon ourselves and our children (having yesterday given away our ``rainy-day funds'' to Republican rain-makers) so that we might pursue a more secure world tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, we don't have to like it, and I can tell you, I don't. I am bitter and fighting mad about the sly deceit and mendacity that has characterized this Administration's Iraq policy and that is continuing to this day. But we have a job to do and it costs money. It costs a lot of money. And it will cost even more money in the future. The alternative, however, is not just ruins left in Baghdad, the alternative is a failed state, a new home for terrorists and their plans. The choice is fighting terrorism by cleaning up the squalor in which terrorism thrives, or taking our chances, and hoping everything turns out OK. I can not--I will not--vote to put our Nation's future into the unthinking hands of fate, or worse, into the hands of the people we are fighting at this very moment in Iraq. We must succeed. I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, encourage the administration to use all of the tools at its disposal to enforce that accountability. Mr. Speaker, today's debate over the Syria Accountability Act, is in my view, Congress's long overdue response to the Bush Administration's failure to match its tough talk with demonstrations of our resolve. This spring, the Administration took sudden notice of the numerous and longstanding Syrian policies that are hostile to our national interests. The President dispatched the Secretary of State to loudly threaten serious consequences; there were the predictable rounds of feckless diplomacy; and then the Administration's attention wandered off. Syria's policies, of course, didn't change one bit. We know that during combat operations in Iraq, there was credible evidence of arms and people moving from Syria into Iraq. And we know that Syria is directly responsible for providing safe passage and transit documentation to many of the terrorists now working to undermine our relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Bush administration's response? Zero. We know that Syria's highly touted cooperation in battling Al-Qaeda has dried up. According to the State Department counterterrorism coordinator, Damascus has ``allowed Al-Qaeda personnel to come in and virtually settle in Syria with their knowledge and their support.'' The Bush Administration's response? Zero. We have known for years that Damascus has actively opposed U.S. efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through its patronage of Hezbollah. Today, Hezbollah, is aggressively working to facilitate ever greater levels of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. And since Hezbollah can't get Iranian weapons through Iraqi airspace, Damascus is reported to be supplying Hezbollah with weapons from Syria's own depots. The Bush Administration's response? Zero. On July 22, President Bush said ``Syria . . . continue[s] to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable.'' It's now mid-October. Secretary Powell went to Damascus in early May. Where's the accountability? Moreover, when asked only weeks ago to testify about Syria's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration provided an elaborate listing of the numerous authorities they have under U.S. law, the powers provided by executive orders, and the manifold capabilities of the executive branch, all to counter Syria's proliferation efforts. But next to nothing was offered on how these tools are being used. By now, two things should be indisputably clear: terrorism is the Assad regime's preferred strategic option in dealing with America, and bluster is the favored method of the Bush Administration in dealing with Syria. Mr. Speaker, Congress can only provide the tools, and with this bill, we will be adding to the already considerable stockpile of authority the President has chosen not to use. What's lacking in our Syria policy is not legal authority. What's lacking is consistency, focus, and resolve. I hope passage of this bill will prompt the Bush Administration to conduct the kind of serious policy review that has been unfortunately absent so far, that has allowed our policy to drift so badly, and that has brought this legislation to the floor of the House. I strongly encourage Members to support the bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, October 10 marks the 92nd anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China and is celebrated internationally as Taiwan's National Day. As this historic day approaches, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate President Chen Shui-bian and the people of Taiwan for their continuing political reforms and economic achievements. Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, Taiwan has established itself as a strong and successful model of democracy. Under the leadership of President Chen, the government and people of Taiwan have continued to implement domestic reforms and strengthen diplomatic relations with surrounding nations. This continuing commitment to democratic progress can best be seen in next year's elections. With both the presidential and legislative elections scheduled for 2004, next year will likely prove to be a politically dynamic and exciting year for Taiwan. I applaud the robust multiparty democracy that Taiwan has become. Mr. Speaker, along with its democratic development, Taiwan remains an important economic partner for the United States. We are Taiwan's largest market, but Taiwan is our 7th largest trading partner. This is a remarkable achievement for this island nation of 22 million people. Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization last year will set the stage for even greater opportunities for U.S. business. Mr. Speaker, as Taiwan continues to earn international acclaim as a model of democratic progress and free market economics, I call on my colleagues to join me in commending Taiwan during the upcoming celebration of Taiwan's National Day.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an icon of public service, May W. Newburger, for her exemplary career, dedicated to the people of the Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County and New York State. May Newburger has had a long and distinguished career, to the great benefit of the people. May spent eight highly productive years, from 1978 to 1986, in the New York State Assembly. She served as Town Councilwoman in North Hempstead from 1991 to 1993, and was the first woman to be elected chief executive of a Nassau County town. Now in her fifth term, she has served as Town Supervisor of North Hempstead since 1993. As Town Supervisor, May Newburger has been the driving force behind long-term strategic financial planning in North Hempstead, most notably through the Debt Management and Capital Plans. She has already transformed a $7-million budget deficit into a surplus of $7.7 million, and through her leadership and foresight, she will have reduced the Town's debt by $107 million over the next ten years. This planning has helped move the Town from the lowest bond rating in its history to its highest ever. Mr. Speaker, under May Newburger's dynamic leadership, North Hempstead was named ``Town of the Year 1999'' by the Long Island Development Corporation, and received the ``Quality of Life'' award from the Long Island Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. May also spearheaded the initiative to reclaim the Morewood Property, an environmentally damaged area, turning it into the Harbor Links municipal golf course. This prescient, breathtaking project is one of America's most environmentally friendly championship level golf courses, winning the ``Environmental Stewardship Award'' as well as the prestigious ``Audubon Signature Distinction.'' Supervisor Newburger also successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency for $200,000 to designate New Cassel as a Brownfields Pilot Community. Throughout her career in public service, May Newburger has served on many state and national committees and has received innumerable awards and honors. In 1981, she served as a New York State Delegate to the White House Conference on Families; from 1987 to 1989 she chaired the American Jewish Congress' National Commission on Women's Equality. She was also a member of the State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, the Governor's Commission of Domestic Violence and the State Commission on Child Care. Mr. Speaker, the good citizens of North Hempstead and Nassau County are truly blessed to have had the great benefit of May Newburger's vision, leadership, dedication and drive for these many years. Her commitment to her constituents has never flagged; she has been indefatigable in the cause of improving the lives of others. I am awed by her accomplishments, humbled to have known her, and very proud to call her my friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please rise and join me now in honoring May W. Newburger, in celebrating her outstanding career in public service, and in extending our best wishes to her as she goes on to meet new challenges.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor May W. Newburger on the occasion of her retirement from public service. During her long and distinguished career, Ms. Newburger served for two years as Town Councilwoman as well as for eight highly productive years in the New York State Assembly. She was the first woman to be elected chief executive of a Nassau County town and is currently serving her fifth term as Town Supervisor of North Hempstead, New York. As Town Supervisor, May Newburger has been the driving force behind long-term strategic financial planning in North Hempstead, most notably through the Debt Management and Capital Plans. She has already transformed a $7 million budget deficit into a surplus of $7.7 million and will reduce the town debt by $107 million over the next ten years. This planning has helped move the town from the lowest bond rating to the highest in its history. Under May Newburger's leadership, North Hempstead was named ``Town of the Year 1999'' by the Long Island Development Corporation and received the ``Quality of Life'' award from the Long Island Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. May also spearheaded the initiative to reclaim the Morewood Property, an environmentally damaged area, turning it into the Harbor Links municipal golf course, one of the country's most environmentally friendly championship level golf courses and the winner of the ``Environmental Stewardship Award'' as well as the prestigious ``Audubon Signature Distinction.'' Supervisor Newburger also successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency for $200,000 to designate New Cassel as a Brownfields Pilot Community. Throughout her career in public service, May Newburger has received innumerable awards and honors and has served on many State and national committees. In 1981, she served as a New York State Delegate to the White House Conference on Families and from 1987 to 1989 she chaired the American Jewish Congress' National Commission on Women's Equality. She was also a member of the State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, the Governor's Commission of Domestic Violence and the State Commission on Child Care. I commend May W. Newburger for her commitment and tireless dedication to improving the lives of others. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in celebrating her outstanding career in public service.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Over the past several months, the Financial Services Committee has held numerous hearings, in addition to the subcommittee and full committee markup of this legislation. As a member of the committee, I am proud to have played a role in crafting this important legislation which achieves a number of goals important to consumers, as well as to the financial industry. This legislation extends the expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allows consumers to receive free annual credit reports, and protects consumers' sensitive medical information. I am particularly pleased with the provisions that help consumers prevent and correct inadequacies in their credit reports. The bill provides that when a financial institution reports negative information, such as a consumer's delinquencies, the institution must notify the consumer of this in writing. This is a win-win for all parties involved. Financial institutions will stand a greater chance of collecting their money sooner if the consumer is warned that being reported to the credit bureau is imminent. A notice in writing stating you will be reported to the credit bureaus for this delinquency and that this will affect your credit rating is strong motivation for most consumers. For the consumer who wants to protect and improve his credit rating, this is essential information. For the consumer whose identity has been stolen, this may be a vital notification. I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank and their excellent staffs, all my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, and representative of both the financial services industry and consumer groups to develop this historic bipartisan legislation. I ask my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 2622.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Meeks- Crowley-Ackerman amendment to prevent the unnecessary closing of the St. Albans Primary & Extended Care Center. This center provides primary care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative rehabilitation to veterans from New York City and Nassau County. To close it would be a disservice to the Veterans of Queens and Nassau County. At a time, when we have sent over 150,000 troops to fight in Iraq, it is indefensible that these men and women may come home to find that the Veterans Center is no longer there. Closing this facility would be an insult to those who have served our country so bravely. The Veterans Administration is currently dangerously under-funded. To save dollars, the Administration wants to close Veterans' health centers. However, the administration did manage to find the money to give the wealthiest Americans a tremendous tax cut. We must fulfill our promises to our veterans and continue to provide access to the quality health care they were promised. Currently, veterans sometimes have to wait months for doctors' appointments at VA Hospitals. Closing St. Albans will simply exacerbate this problem. If St. Albans is closed, veterans will have to go to other already overcrowded facilities in New York. We owe it to our veterans to provide them access to quality health care. St. Albans needs to remain open.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Saudis have been bad, bad, bad, but this amendment makes everything worse, worse, worse, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. There seems to be a lot of confusion because there is an array of speakers we have seen who are usually on the same side on these issues. And I have to tell you what the real problem is. The real problem is that there are two Saudi Arabias. One is the Wahabi fanatics, who are prone to terrorism, and the other is the government and the royal family that is holding on by their very rich, and sometimes greedy, claws to the tenets of power and making money. It is in their interest to control the terrorists and to eliminate the terrorists. If you had to put your money down on one of these players, which one would you pick? The answer is, and my bet for a lousy $100,000 goes with the government. This list that we would put the Saudis on, every other nation on that list is a government sponsor of terrorism. The Saudis have terrorism, but it is not sponsored by the government. Osama bin Laden's number one enemy is not the United States, it is not Israel, it is their own government of Saudi Arabia. This wicked genius that did such damage to our country and to my city picked 14 Saudis to be on those planes for a specific reason, because he knew what it would do to the reputation of the country that has outlawed him, that has banned him, that has taken away his citizenship. They do not need our bucks. What they need is a little bit of encouragement, a little bit of encouragement when they do do the right thing, which is not very often. But they are trying, too, to rid themselves and the rest of the world of this terrorist threat that promises to topple their government and then some others. This money that we are talking about is to bring some people in the military from Saudi Arabia here to join with our military people to teach them how to deal with these terrorists, how to cooperate with us. Anybody who knows anything about the intelligence on this issue, anybody who has studied it in depth knows that the names and addresses of so many of the terrorists that have been picked up in the Middle East and other places in the world have been provided to us by the Saudi Government. They cannot proudly stand up and say that because it would threaten them more than it does right now. This amendment is the amendment to bite your nose to spite your face. Sure, we want to kick the Saudis around; sure, they have done some terrible things. But if we want to help those in Saudi Arabia who want to correct it, the right vote on this is ``no'' on this amendment. Let us not pander, let us not trip over each other to show our reasonableness on antiterrorism. Let us think this issue through and do the right thing, the right thing for America, the right thing for the world, the right thing for the international community, and the right thing for all those people who want to end terrorism. Let our military and our intelligence people have the benefit of meeting with those people from Saudi Arabia that want to help in this situation. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question on behalf of all of those Members who were not in any of those rooms: If it was the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in the hearing room with the fruitcake, why did you sic the cops on the Democrats in the library?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I thank the gentleman very much for trying to bring civility back to the House which is very important. In consultation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who was the only Democrat on the committee who the police were not called to throw out of the library because he was not in the library, he was in the committee room, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has accepted your apology. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond, first to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend, I may not be in the cattle business; but I can tell a good steak when I see one. This does not a good steak make, and that is exactly the point. And in answer to both questions to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), there is a greater picture that some might argue about testing anywhere along the process and euthanizing the animal prior to reaching the marketplace. That is all well and good, and we could argue those points; but that is not what this amendment is all about. This amendment does not prevent any of that from happening. This specific amendment does not touch any of the testing procedures. We want the animals tested. There are those who even have a greater picture; and they would say, let us not eat meat at all. That is not the purpose of this gentleman, and that is not the purpose of this amendment. This amendment says after you go through all of these processes and all of these wonderful things that are in place right now, why jeopardize it all for the sake of making a few bucks and jeopardize the entire cattle industry, a major American industry, for the sake of making a few bucks off a couple of crippled animals, less than .63 percent of the entire population. It makes no sense. One mad cow has closed them down in Canada. Do we want that to happen in the United States? There is a humanitarian issue here for those of us who appreciate the inhumane treatment of animals, and there is a public-safety issue. And if nothing else, for goodness sake, look at the public-safety issue and look at what happened to Canada. Granted, we do a little bit better job, we think; but one mad cow is all it will take to shut down our industry.