Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend. Madam Speaker, our time is drawing to a close; so I would like to summarize some of the points that we have made and some of the very specific solutions that the Center Aisle Caucus is pursuing. Number one, we have a bipartisan resolution that would direct the President to submit and negotiate a status of forces agreement with the sovereign government of Iraq. Number two, we believe that if you are a refugee who was providing a critical lifesaving service for U.S. forces as a translator, as an interpreter, or some related position and that you have received death threats and that you want to get your family out of harm's way that we shouldn't make it almost impossible for you to do so, that a compassionate nation would reward you rather than building roadblocks. So we have proposed legislation cosponsored by Mr. Wolf from Virginia and me that would make it a little bit easier for those who have provided a service to the United States military to seek special immigrant status here. Number three, we believe that the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report ought to be incorporated into policy and not just sit on a shelf, the recommendations for a diplomatic surge and all the other recommendations. Now, we may not agree on every single one of these elements, and we may not agree on every single one of the bills that the Center Aisle Caucus has put forward, but we are trying to build that critical mass and develop consensus on some clear directions. Next, the Center Aisle Caucus will be visiting one another's districts to hold bipartisan town hall meetings because we may not have all of the ideas here. Our jobs are Members of Congress, but we are representatives. We are supposed to represent the views that we hear. So we will be going out on a bipartisan basis to one another's districts to hear those views. One other thing that I didn't have an opportunity to mention and we will mention it in the future is that our colleagues from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) are working on a bipartisan Center Aisle assessment of the War Powers Act. As our colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) said at one of our dinners, ``I fear that one day we as Members of Congress will wake up and find out that we have just launched World War Three and we are reading about it in the newspaper.'' He is very concerned, as is Mr. English, that the War Powers Act needs to be assessed. We want to make sure that we are exercising our constitutional oversight responsibility and that we don't find ourselves in a war without that proper congressional authority and oversight. So they will be convening an assessment of the War Powers Act and making some legislative recommendations. I want to conclude by reiterating something that I said when we opened up, Madam Speaker. We are not going to end the war tomorrow through the Center Aisle Caucus. None of these resolutions will end the war tomorrow as much as many of us would like to end the war tomorrow and may vote to end the war tomorrow. But we have had enough screaming at one another from both sides of the aisle, and that has not ended the war up to now. We have an obligation to the people that I saw yesterday, that my colleagues Mr. Dent and Mr. Lampson and Mr. Gilchrest have been visiting at our military hospitals and at funerals. They don't want us to harp on left and right. They want us to figure out a way forward. They want us to put aside disagreements that have paralyzed us and move forward on what we can agree to. That is exactly what we intend to continue focusing on. I thank my colleagues for spending time on this very late evening, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that the American people understand the importance of this engagement, this reconciliation, this dialogue to move not left or right but forward. Did the gentleman want to close?

Mr. ISRAEL. I would like to raise another very specific solution, bipartisan solution that the Center Aisle Caucus has with respect to Iraq. Last week, and I know my colleagues may be shocked to hear this, or perhaps they won't be shocked, perhaps they have had the same experience I have, but last week I met with an Iraqi refugee and his family. This individual was a translator for coalition forces, risked his life as a translator. The work that he was doing was saving the lives of our forces, of our military people. He has a wife, a son and a disabled daughter. He decided that Iraq was no longer a safe place for his family. Why? Not just because of the war, but because of the service that he performed for the American military. So he applied for a special immigrant visa, and this is what he was told: First you have to find a general to sign the form. He said, well, I don't know many generals who can sign this form. Can I find someone else? He was told, no, the regulation is that you have to find a general. Well, he found a general who signed, who vouched for his credibility. Then he was told, well, you can't apply for a special immigrant visa here in Iraq. You actually have to leave Iraq, go to another country and apply. Well, that's just mind-boggling. Again, this is somebody who risked his life translating for American forces, and they have saved their lives, when they have translated what the bad guys were saying and what they were planning, and he was told, you have to leave Iraq to submit your visa application. So he found his way with his family to Amman, Jordan. Then he was told, by the way, when you apply for this special immigrant visa, you have got to pay fees, hundreds and hundreds of dollars. This young man didn't have that kind of money. Can you imagine, he was, again, interpreting for our military and then told to leave the country and perhaps save his life; he had to pay a fee for himself, his wife, his son, his disabled daughter. Guess what, he came up with the money. Then he sat for a year in Jordan and waited for them to process the application. I want to make sure that you understand the point that I am making. We are not saying we should open the doors for every single refugee, let them in without being properly vetted, without the proper security checks, without the background checks; but certainly someone who is providing services to the United States military, who had already been vetted by the military, who was saving lives, deserves better than, you have got to leave the country, you have got to find a general to sign the form, you have to pay hundreds of dollars for the form, you have to wait for a year, and then we will see if we can let you in. To top it off, when he finally arrived here, this individual, who has critical military skills, the ability to read and understand what our enemies may be saying about us, was told, well, you have got to find a job somewhere, maybe you can drive a taxi. I think the State Department and Department of Defense ought to be rolling out the red carpet for this individual. One of the most glaring deficiencies we have in our military right now is an inability to translate documents, to hear what our enemies are saying about us. We ought to be hiring these people at whatever salary we can afford to pay them. Then to add insult to injury, when he came here, he asked, well, how do I get various documents? There was no one area to give him some information, nothing. So Frank Wolf, who was the ranking Republican of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on which I now serve, and I have introduced legislation that would make this system a little easier for people who have already established that they can help the United States. Number one, we would allow our Ambassador in Iraq to have more authority so that he can vouch for the credibility of those who assisted U.S. efforts. Number two, we allow those people to apply for visas at the U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate in Iraq. We don't force them to go to another country, Jordan or elsewhere. Number three, we waive fees for those who have demonstrated their support for U.S. forces, their assistance, who have been properly vetted. We help find translators find work in the United States in the military and State Department, and we broaden relocation benefits. Now, who can be against somebody who helped our Armed Forces by translating for them? I can't think of a single person who would say, no, they risked their lives, but we have to make them stay there. We have to make it harder for them and suggest this is another area of bipartisan agreement that we can agree on. I am hopeful that the Israel-Wolf resolution will be passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. I don't know whether any of my colleagues would like to comment on that particular legislation or share some of their thoughts, but I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great concern over the ongoing Qassam attacks on the southern city of Sderot, Israel. Sderot is a community that has been plagued with frequent and intense firing on its inhabitants and infrastructure since Hamas's takeover of Gaza. These Palestinian militants are attempting to destroy an entire population and bring everyday life there to a halt. Even today, two Qassam rockets landed in the vicinity of Sderot. One of these rockets was aimed at and landed near a kindergarten, on the first week of the new school year. Imagine the dilemma parents in this region face--they don't know if their children on any given day are safer at school, or at home given the continued rocket firings. These homemade rockets cannot aim solely at military targets because they do not have any degree of precision. They are primitive, short- range, home-made rockets that do not have the technical capability to be guided, and consequently, strike innocent civilians. They have indiscriminately destroyed the economy and physically and psychologically devastated family life. The current situation is unacceptable--the terror organization Hamas is clearly violating Israel's sovereignty and overriding Israel's right over its land and people. A city of no more than 24,000, Sderot is less than a mile from the border with Gaza, where Israel withdrew its troops in the summer of 2005. Since then, thousands of these rockets pummeled this city and terrorized men, women and children on a daily basis. Sderot citizens are unable to go about their normal lives and should not be expected to live under this permanent threat. Israel has shown considerable restraint and patience in dealing with those terrorist firing, despite the severity of the situation and the casualties and injuries they have taken. However, Israel has the complete right to defend itself against these intolerable attacks. No belief, however misguided, can justify the victimization of innocent people. I would like to express my solidarity not only with the citizens of Sderot, but with victims of terrorism around the world. We need to do everything we can to bring an end to this unjust situation and help create a lasting peace so that the citizens of Sderot can go about their lives.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and partner in this critically important project, and I thank her for her leadership on this legislation. I know that she has been so dedicated and so devoted to this cause. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the President of the United States spoke to the Nation, and here is what he said: ``The American people have faced other grave crises in their history--with American courage, and with American resolution. They will do no less today.'' I am not talking about President Bush saying those words on September 11. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said those words on September 11, 1941, 60 years before the attacks on our Nation. We have witnessed that resolution and that courage all around us since September 11. We witness it almost every day in our own interactions with the rescue workers, with the first responders, with those who could have fled and gone in another direction, but instead showed up and said that they wanted to help. I know of an ironworker, Mr. Speaker, his name is John Sferazo. John Sferazo went to Ground Zero to help. He refused to leave. Today, John Sferazo's voice sounds like gravel. His breathing is labored. His chest hurts him. I know that my friend is well aware of John Sferazo. John Sferazo contracted some very serious medical problems at Ground Zero. He probably knew then that he would have these problems. But still he didn't leave. He stayed there. And as a result of his courage and his commitment, his resolution and his determination, today his breathing is labored, it is difficult for him to speak. Our obligation to John Sferazo is to make sure we take care of him, to monitor his health, to improve his quality of life, to take care of him, because when the time came, he was there to take care of us. I know of another worker, Mr. Speaker. I met him at a Ground Zero workers conference in my congressional district at the State University of New York at Farmingdale. I met him about a year ago. I was a speaker at that conference; and as I was leaving, he stopped me in the lobby, and this is what he said. He said, Congressman, I am not sure I am going to be here next year. I am embarrassed to say, Mr. Speaker, that I thought he was saying that he wasn't sure he could attend the conference next year. I said, Well, I am sure that you will be able to come back. He said, No, you don't understand. I'm not sure I am going to be alive next year, is what he said. He said, What I am supposed to do with my family? Who is going to take care of them? It may sound melodramatic, Mr. Speaker, but these are real people. Can you imagine doing what you thought was the best thing you could do, serving your country, serving your colleagues, going to Ground Zero, sacrificing yourself, and now you are not sure you are going to be around a year from now? What is our obligation to these people? Our obligation is to take care of them and to take care of their families. Our obligation is to make sure that they get the health care that they need. Our obligation is to let them know that we will not forget them. I will close by suggesting that next week many of us in Congress will attend 9/11 ceremonies. I plan after votes to fly home to be at Commack High School in my district for a 9/11 vigil. We are going to light the candles, and we are going to talk about what a grievous day that was and our commitment to having a strong Nation. But, really, we should not think about these people just on 9/11. This should not be an anniversary commemoration. The legislation that the gentlewoman has introduced with my friends from New York will make sure that this is not just an annual commemoration, but that every single day, those workers who were there on 9/11 at Ground Zero get the health care that they need and that we are securing their future. We had faced a crisis that day, a national crisis. They face a crisis every day, a personal crisis; and it is up to us to help and to secure their future. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for her leadership.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, today there is going to be lots of talks about process and procedures and walkouts and delays. The American people don't want us to focus on process. They don't want us to walk out. They want us to move forward. One way we can move forward on both sides of the aisle is to pass an energy bill today as a matter of national security. Because 2 years ago the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion to fuel itself to protect us. The Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing: Fuel. We are in a situation right now where we are borrowing money from China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is not the time to delay or walk out. This is the time for us to work together, move America forward, pass an energy bill and make us safer.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee.

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, how many times can our friends on the other side of the aisle raise nongermane issues after the Chair has ruled that they must confine their remarks to the underlying bill?

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, we have been debating this amendment for 1 hour. We accepted this amendment within that 1 hour.

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, point of order.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time?

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, before I reserve the balance of my time, I just remind the gentleman who accused us of being socialists that I think just about every Republican, including very conservative members of the Appropriations Committee, supported this bill. I don't believe they would appreciate being called socialists because they believe in cops on the street and more resources for the FBI. They are not socialists; neither are we. We are commonsense, mainstream Members of Congress who want to protect America's neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, while they talk about cutting the increase, criminals keep increasing. There has been a 3.6 percent increase in violent crimes. We believe at least we should keep pace with those criminals so we can put them behind bars and bring them to justice. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has exhausted her time?

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief point and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio. With the deepest respect to the gentlewoman, no one is implying that there is not concern by every Member of this body for those who have drug problems, for those whose lives are being ruined by meth. But you can't just wish these problems away. Somebody's got to take responsibility for working to end those problems. Just like you can't wish them away, you can't expect that they are going to be dealt with by cutting investments in antidrug programs or even cutting the rate of increase, if you want to use the other side's terms. We've put $40 million in this bill for mobile enforcement teams for antidrug programs; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, mobile enforcement teams right here at home to help the gentlewoman's constituents with those problems, to provide for a better future. We're investing in that future. We can't just wish these problems away. You've got to respond to them, and that's what we are trying to do. Now, if the other side made the argument that we could cut giveaways to big oil companies and cut offshore tax corporate giveaways and cut all this corporate welfare and then cut these important criminal justice programs, then their arguments would have more credibility. Their arguments lack credibility because they're saying we can afford all these corporate giveaways, but we can't afford enforcement teams on drug abuse, we can't afford more cops on the street while crime is increasing, we can't afford counterterrorism initiatives and extra agents at the FBI while al Qaeda is planning against us. This is just a difference in priorities, Mr. Chairman. We are strong on crime. We also understand that if you're going to be strong on crime, you can't just say it, you've got to do it, and frankly, it takes investments to do it. That's what this bill does, and that's why every Republican on the committee supported this bill when it was in the committee, and that's why this amendment will be defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Well, here we go again. We've been here week after week after week and entertained amendment after amendment after amendment. I respect my colleagues for trying. Unfortunately, a majority of their caucus disagrees with them, as does a majority of Congress. These amendments keep coming up, and they keep getting defeated, and there's good reason for that, particularly with this bill. Let me share some statistics with you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to them before. Violent crime is increasing in the United States today for the first time in 15 years. In 2005, violent crimes increased 2.3 percent. 2006, violent crimes increased another 1.3 percent. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Chairman, there were an additional 100,000 new meth users over the age of 12. Now, there is a dangerous correlation, because at the same time these violent crimes are increasing, Federal investments in safe communities have been cut. From 2001 to 2006, funding for local law enforcement grants was cut 42 percent. This isn't just a cut in the rate of increase, this is a wholesale cut in Federal support for anticrime programs, 42 percent, from $4.4 billion to $2.5 billion. And not only is crime going up as a result of these Federal cuts, but local taxes, which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation, are going up as well. Because the fact of the matter is that when you cut Federal law enforcement resources, the criminals don't go away. They stay on the streets. They keep robbing banks. They keep beating people up. They keep stealing. They keep conspiring. And so while the Federal Government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our streets safe, it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep those streets safe. And so all this Federal cut is is a transfer of the obligation to local taxpayers. So what sounds like a cut on the Federal level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their communities. Mr. Chairman, let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases. Safe communities. This small group of Members, who disagree with every Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill, had no problem supporting a $90 billion tax shelter for the biggest offshore companies on Earth to protect their profits. We in this bill invest a fraction of that, $693 million, to add 2,800 police officers to our streets to protect our neighborhoods. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We can have differences on how to protect our borders. We all want to keep our borders safe, but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a felony, or several misdemeanors, and is arrested and incarcerated, most of us believe that the Federal Government ought to assume the financial obligation for incarcerating those people. This small group of Members had no problem spending $14 billion on tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on Earth in the history of profit-making. We invest a fraction of that, $405 million, to reimburse local taxpayers for the costs of the incarceration of criminal aliens. What makes more sense to America? The war on drugs. We learned in Iraq that you can't win a war when you underfund the troops. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. You can't win a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets. This small group had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on Vice President Cheney's no-bid contracts. We invest a fraction of that, $40 million, to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, Mr. Chairman, mobile enforcement teams here at home. Child exploitation. We fund 93 additional positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity laws; 38 new positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight gang crimes. Gang crimes are proliferating. Gangs are a national problem. They cross not only State borders, they cross town lines and county lines and village lines. It requires a national investment to stop these gangs from preying on our children. We invest in stopping those gangs. This small group says, let's cut gang enforcement by 3 percent. Domestic violence. We invest $430 million for the Violence Against Women Act for prosecutions. This small group says, we can protect the profits of big drug companies, we can protect the profits of corporations that register themselves at P.O. boxes in Bermuda, but we have to save the investment in protecting women from domestic violence? Finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is the real kicker, to coin a phrase by my friend from Ohio several days ago, the war on terror. For the past 7 years, the FBI counterterrorist caseload has increased more than 100 percent, from 1,150 to nearly 2,400. How do they make the argument, Mr. Chairman, that as the counterterrorist caseload is going up 100 percent, we should shave resources by 3 percent to the FBI? I think most Americans understand that they can't go out and investigate terrorists, that that's the job of the FBI. We want the FBI to have those resources. If there is money for oil companies, if there is money for offshore corporations, if there is money for Halliburton, how is it that we can't afford additional resources for the FBI in the global war on terror? Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about priorities. And this is the debate we've had. The sponsors of this bill have legitimate philosophies, and I understand their philosophies. Their philosophies are wrong. They say government wants more of your money and that you should decide how to spend it. That's not true. They've spent the people's money on tax cuts for oil companies. We want to invest in COPS for neighborhoods. They've spent it on no-bid contracts for big companies. We want to spend it on investigators for the FBI. They spent it on protecting the profits of offshore companies. We want to invest it in protecting the safety of our neighborhoods. That is why, Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats, were united on this bill in the Appropriations Committee. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee joined Democrats in passing this bill because it was common sense, the right investments, the right priorities. And that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a vote, it will follow the same course and the same fate as every similar amendment before it. It will be defeated, not just by Democrats, but by Democrats and Republicans who understand that America would rather have their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have the offshore profits of companies at P.O. boxes in Bermuda protected by this small group of Members. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, with violent crimes increasing for the first time in 15 years, with more pressure on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, less resources and less investments in keeping our communities safe is not the answer. Cutting programs to the FBI, cops on the streets, anti-meth programs is not the answer. Our communities want safer streets. They want a vigorous response against crime. That's what this bill does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that we can afford to cut or shave budgets for anticrime programs like COPS. The gentleman did not support attempts to cut or shave the $90 billion in tax shelters that allow offshore companies to shelter their profits, open up P.O. boxes in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. We invest a fraction of that $90 billion tax shelter, $693 million, to add 2,800 cops to the streets of neighborhoods. We want to make neighborhoods safer by adding more cops. The gentleman wants to make corporate offshore profits safer. That's a difference in priorities between our bill and theirs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, violent crimes increased 3.6 percent in the past 2 years for the first time in 15 years. The gentleman's response is to cut spending for police officers, child abuse programs, domestic violence programs and antidrug programs by 3 percent. With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close; is that correct?