Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. I continue to reserve.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the distinguished chairman, Jim Oberstar.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I'm happy to yield an additional minute.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this time that all of us here in the House bask in the obvious and well-felt pride that has been expressed especially from our Czech and Slovak colleagues that are here. Congratulations to them as well as in a few moments we pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th birthday of Morris Fein on Saturday, November 28, 2009. Morris Fein is more than a friend; he is an inspiration and a living testament to the American Dream. Frank and Kate Feintuch migrated from Poland and arrived at Ellis Island aboard the Polonia in 1911 with two-year-old Morris. A product of the New York City public school system, Morris began his education at PS 13 and graduated from Stuyesant High School at the age of 16. Becoming the first member in his family to graduate both high school and college, Morris obtained his Bachelors Degree in History from the City College of New York and graduated with a commission as Second Lieutenant of the ROTC. In 1936, Morris met and married Vera Rothman, with whom he celebrated his seventy-second wedding anniversary in 2008 before her passing. Morris and Vera lived in Astoria, Queens, in a one-bedroom apartment. They not only raised their three children--Sheldon, Benjamin and Roselyn--there, but Morris also operated his tax practice from the apartment on the weekends. In 1954, the family moved to a three-bedroom single-family home in Flushing, Queens. To support his family, Morris worked in excess of sixty hours per week, holding at minimum three jobs at any given time. For over 40 years he served as an Investigator/Inspector for the New York State Department of Agriculture, spearheading many investigations of major consequence in the Jewish and secular communities throughout New York State. Through out his life, Morris has always strongly identified with his Jewish heritage. A strong believer in ``giving back'' to the community, he played a vital role in creating and maintaining the Queensborough Hill Jewish Center, a house of worship and education for his community. He served as a member of the Executive Board and Board of Trustees, including President and Treasurer, at the Synagogue. He also served as the long-term Financial Secretary and then President of the Hrubishower Sick & Benevolent Society; and was a member of the Queensborough Hill Synagogues Men's Club. After suffering a hip injury in 2002, Morris and his wife moved to an independent living facility in Huntington Terrace, NY, where he currently resides. A member of the South Huntington Jewish Center in Melville, he serves as President of the ``Residents Board'' at Huntington Terrace/Brandywine Senior Living. Morris will be celebrating his 100th birthday with his children, Sheldon, Benjamin and his wife Judy Sharmat, Roselyn and her husband Edward Rudofsky; with his grandchildren and their spouses, Lee Rudofksy, Gayle Rudofsky, Steven Fein, Leonard Fein, Dr. Samual Sharmat, Soraya, Juliana and Alissa; and with his great grandchildren, Ethan Fein, Jim Fein, and Sophia Sharmat. Madam Speaker, I call on all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to rise and join me now in extending our congratulations to Morris Fein on the grand occasion of his 100th birthday.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962. Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decade. Americans want reduced costs and more choices. Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre- existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans. The act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve. I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000 uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term. Putting these principles into action is not only doable; it is absolutely essential. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of H. Res. 903--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3962--the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decide. Americans want reduced costs and more choices. Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre- existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans. The Act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve. I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000 uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term. Putting these principles into action is not only do- able; it is abs essential. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the rule for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. Res. 903, so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution and want to express my deep appreciation to the Chairman, Mr. Berman, and to the Ranking Minority Member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their efforts to bring this resolution before the House. In April 2009, the U.N. Human Rights Council set up a Commission to condemn Israel. To the surprise of no one, it did exactly that. But for the grave subject matter, the Goldstone report, built heavily on testimony provided under the auspices of Hamas, would be laughable. In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by Judge Goldstone and his colleagues, there's no such thing as terrorism; there's no such thing as Hamas (and if it does exist, it's certainly nothing to fear); there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense; and war is like a sporting event, rather than the most ghastly, destructive, chaotic phenomenon we human beings are capable of creating. Had the report been submitted by a group of eager law students or the human rights club on a college campus, I would suggest that their efforts had been unfortunately wasted on the production of a pompous, tendentious, one-sided political diatribe. Notwithstanding all their alleged ``facts'' there's very little truth, and for all the so-called ``context'' they supply, there's very little wisdom. As this diatribe actually carries the imprimatur of a part of the United Nations, there have been--as I feared when the report was first issued--a number of very unfortunate developments all based on the report is being mistaken for a credible piece of work, which it is not. In addition to the wasteful consideration of this thoroughly biased and fatally flawed document in several bodies of the United Nations, the report has also set off yet another round of offensive and sterile Israel-bashing that has brought peace no closer, that has produced no international consensus, and, along the way, that has further sullied and cheapened the reputation of the United Nations and the cause of human rights. Certainly, the United States must do all that it can to ensure that no more time is spent on this distraction from the real work of making peace. The Obama Administration has rightfully denounced the Goldstone Report, which, if it was taken seriously, would make it legally impossible for this country, or any other country, to defend themselves from terrorists who hide behind civilians. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been forcefully arguing that international community can't possibly expect Israel to exchange ``land for peace'' if, when the peace breaks down, Israel is effectively prohibited from defending itself. First of all, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is completely right. And second, there's not even the smallest shred of a possibility that the Israeli public would agree to any peace agreement under the absurd operational restrictions that the Goldstone Report proposes to require of Israel's (and every other country's) armed forces. The resolution makes clear the strong view of the House that the Obama Administration must do everything it can to quash the Goldstone report, both to protect our own right of self-defense, and to make clear to the world that they can have Goldstone, or they can have Middle East peace, but they can't have Goldstone and Middle East peace.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Can any Member of this body claim the privilege of the House for an hour based on something they read in a newspaper at any time they want?

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the resolution before the House. I want to commend the chairman for his strong efforts particularly on the bill as we adopted it in the House in July. The bill before us today had to satisfy other parties and is, in my view, a lesser product for it. The fundamental question this legislation attempts to answer is: How can we best ensure the full cooperation of the Government and the people of Pakistan in our struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other sources of violence, terror, and regional instability? In the text authored by Chairman Berman, the answer to this question was to propose a long-term partnership, one in which both sides had both interests and responsibilities, a partnership of equals who were expected to constantly and appropriately judge whether or not the relationship was succeeding. The compromise bill before us today, however, is not a blueprint for a partnership; it is a recipe for disappointment followed by disillusionment. Pakistan is too big and too complex to be a proper subject for the Senate's preferred Pygmalion-like approach. Even if Pakistanis sought such a relationship, which they very definitely do not, Pakistan is simply beyond our shaping. Pakistan's interests and our own are not very closely aligned. We see India as a major ally. They see India as unalterably rapacious and inherently dangerous. We see the Afghan Taliban as a wicked, oppressive, and violent group intent on returning Afghanistan to primitive theocratic darkness. They see it as a useful insurance policy. We see Pakistan's ongoing relationship with radical Islamic terrorist groups as utterly illegitimate. They see these groups as both fundamentally just and as essential leverage. They see it as an unwarranted foreign imposition and potentially a violation of their rights. And the list of contradictions could go on across a range of subjects from madrassas to arms sales, from state enterprise corruption to feudal land reforms. Setting aside the differences we have with the Government of Pakistan, I think we should all be very circumspect about the ability of our own government to carefully spend $1.5 billion a year in Pakistan. The history of our assistance programs with Pakistan does not inspire confidence in either the rectitude of our partners or our own ability to spend the taxpayers' money effectively. The response to such concerns is predictable: Shall we do nothing? No, of course not. Pakistan is a country we can ignore only at our own peril. Only a fool could pretend that what happens there is not and will not become our concern. This bad neighborhood will definitely come to visit us if we choose not to visit it. But our success will depend chiefly on reforms taken in Pakistan by Pakistanis. I see little in the bill to provide any assurance that such changes are on the way. I fear again we are choosing to be Pakistan's patron rather than its partner. In the end, Pakistan will absorb what we offer and remain the same Pakistan, and, worst of all, they will claim once again that we have failed them. But we have no choice but to pass this bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to recognize the cosponsor, the main sponsor of the resolution, the majority leader of the House.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and commend the majority leader and the minority leader for their good work. We have before us an excellent memorial resolution. It is succinct and strong and truly expresses what I believe to be the position of the entire House. As we consider this resolution, I would suggest that every Member take a moment to close their eyes, if they are in their offices, turn off the chattering of the television or the importuning of their staff and try to think back to September 11, 2001. It really was 8 years ago. Remember how beautiful that day was. Perfect. A clear, crisp September day with a cloudless sky. Remember where you were when you heard that our Nation was under attack, when you first saw those awful images of the towers gushing black smoke and the Pentagon in flames. Remember the thousands of our fellow Americans who perished in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Remember the inconceivable heroism of the first responders who rushed into the flames and the chaos in order to save others. Remember the defiant courage of the passengers on United Flight 93 who lost their lives but probably saved the most glorious symbol of our democracy in the world, the U.S. Capitol, and many, many who were working here on that day. Remember our shock and fury. Remember our national unity and the feeling of common purpose. Remember how the whole world stood with us and shared our outrage and our agony. These memories are available to all of us if we take but that one moment. We all experienced these events, and all that's needed is to take a moment, to set aside a little bit of time and let it all come back. Why? Is it a morbid fascination with catastrophe? Is it merely to justify some policy or expenditure? I would suggest two other reasons. First, memory is what we owe to those who were so unjustly murdered. We cannot bring them back and we cannot give meaning to the horrific act that took them from us, but we can remember them as our fellow Americans, as people whose lives were connected to thousands of our fellow citizens who still mourn them to this very day. Second, I think we should take a moment to ponder the last 8 years. What have we done in response to that day? What have we learned? What do we still owe to those who died? And what we have used their deaths to justify? Have we made the world a safer place? Have we made our homeland more secure? Will the next generation of Americans face more or less danger because of our actions? Each of us will still have our own answers to those questions, just as each one of us remembers that awful day uniquely.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself another 15 seconds. In this great Nation which gives each person complete freedom of thought, belief and expression, in which the governed choose who will govern them, the meaning of 9/11 and the consequences of that terrible, terrible, terrible day remain for us to decide, each man and woman for themselves. All it takes is that moment to remember. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, could I request of the gentlewoman from Florida if she has the time and would be willing to lend us one of her minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you so much. And if someone shows up and you need the time, I would be happy to make a unanimous request that that be restored to you. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself 10 seconds. We have no further additional Members, so if the gentlewoman would like to close we will wait on the Speaker if she chooses to close as well.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the day after that horrific event, I was back in New York. I went to the piers where the people were waiting to claim bodies and hear of missing loved ones. There was a gentleman before this huge wall where people had posted pictures of relatives that were missing. And there was one gentleman standing there--it was close to midnight--all by himself, in traditional Orthodox Jewish garb, with a long black coat and large black-brimmed hat standing in front of a picture of someone who looked remarkably like him. And he just stood there stone-faced. And I just went over and stood next to him as one of the firemen called him to my attention. And he said, without turning away from the picture that he was looking at on the wall, the missing person, he said, That was my brother. He is gone. He called me moments before the building collapsed. He said he knew what was happening, but he would not leave his workplace. He worked in a station next to a young man from Puerto Rico who was sitting in a wheelchair and who was frightened. And he said, My brother told me I will not let him stay here to die alone. And they were holding hands when his brother hung up the phone. That was the kind of bravery we saw from Americans, all kinds of Americans on that fateful day. Let us remember them and the sacrifice they made. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke). (Ms. CLARKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Florida for her cooperation in this bipartisan effort and expression of the House. I yield the balance of our time, 1 minute, to the distinguished Speaker of the House to close the debate, Ms. Pelosi.