Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished gentleman, my very good friend from North Carolina, who has always been a tenacious advocate for the needs of the military and military families at Fort Bragg. I don't reside in North Carolina, but I do know from our friendship and our many conversations that no one fights harder and more effectively to represent the interests of those who are at Fort Bragg, including many of my constituents, who are there now waiting to deploy to Afghanistan. I am very proud to stand here as a sponsor of this bill to honor New York's 69th Infantry Regiment, known as the Fighting 69th, once fought as part of the Irish Brigade. I also want to acknowledge my cosponsor, Congressman Peter King, the gentleman from New York, one of the earliest Republican sponsors of this measure which I have drafted. Soon we will celebrate St. Patrick's day. That is a day when we will commemorate the enduring contributions of Irish Americans to the founding and development of this Nation. In fact, if you read a book by Tom Cahill called ``How the Irish Saved Civilization,'' you would know that not only have the Irish made an enduring contribution to the founding and development of our country, but that their contribution transcends our country. When the world was a dark place, when the Roman Empire fell, when barbarians ruled, they tore down libraries, they destroyed all literature. But it was the Irish who built monasteries. It was the Irish who brought scribes in who literally copied all of the great works of civilization. They preserved it. They handed it down from one generation to the next so that we would have it today. In fact, it was Irish who did save civilization and similarly, it is the Fighting Irish, the 69th Infantry, that has saved America time after time after time and always answered their country's call. Tonight, we put aside whatever political differences many of us have had in the past with respect to whether we should go to war in Iraq or not have gone to war in Iraq. That's not what this is about. Because, together, every Member of this House, Democrats and Republicans, support those who are fighting for our country and have answered the country's call. We support men and women when they are in battle. We support them when they come home. I have always said thank God we live in a country that gives us the right to agree with the decision to go to war, the right to disagree with that decision, the right to remain silent. But no one has any right at all to forget the contributions that servicemembers make when they are called into duty. That is what this resolution is about. Tonight there are a group of men who are in my friend from North Carolina's district who are at Fort Bragg. They are waiting to deploy to Afghanistan with the Fighting 69th. They are continuing the proudest traditions of being deployed to some of the most dangerous places around the world. In the French campaigns of World War I, the island-hopping battles of World War II, in Iraq. That has been the history of the Fighting 69th since 1851. In fact, it is safe to say that it was the 69th that saved the Union during the Civil War. And I would say, with apologies to my friend from North Carolina, the fact of the matter is that those of us on the north side of the Mason-Dixon Line recognize the fact that had it not been for the Fighting 69th, that we might have lost. Why is that? Because in 1861 there was a rumor that the British were going to assist and aid the Confederacy because the British needed cotton and textiles. Had they done that, that would have tilted the balance. That would have ended the cause for those of us north of the Mason-Dixon Line. But you know what? President Lincoln did something very, very smart. Knowing that we could not afford for that to happen, he rallied the Irish boys. He went into New York City, and he mobilized many brand-new Irish American citizens in New York City and asked them to fight for freedom and to fight for the Union. And they fought. They fought at Malvern Hill in Virginia, not very far away from here. They fought against the dreaded and omnipotent Louisiana Tigers. And they won that battle. It was one of the first battles that the Union won. We were getting beaten in many of the early battles. And when Robert E. Lee asked his staff, Who beat us? Who did we just fight? His staff said, General, it was the 69th New York, to which Robert E. Lee, said, Ah, the Fighting 69th. And that is how they got their name, and they have carried that tradition with them ever since, through four wars and a fight to come in Afghanistan, 19 campaigns, six medals of honor. On 9/11, many of them went to the Lexington Avenue Armory. I was there just a few weeks ago. And then they went to Ground Zero. One lost his life, Firefighter Gerard Batpees, a first lieutenant in the 69th. And then they went to Iraq, men like Chris Daniels from Centerport, Lou Delapizi from Bay Shore, and Col. Charles T. Crosby, the commander of the 69th in New York City. Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up by telling my colleagues that a few weeks ago I visited with men of the Fighting 69th at the Bay Shore Armory on Long Island, and we had some good old New York pizza together, and I plan to visit with them in Afghanistan this July. Many of us marched in St. Patrick's Day parades last week. Many of us will march again in St. Patrick's Day parades this weekend. And as we do, I hope we will remember the marches of the Fighting 69th, on Malvern Hill, in France, on Okinawa, where Private Ruiz won a Congressional Medal of Honor for single handedly destroying a Japanese pillbox. Private Ruiz, not exactly an Irish name, but the courage was Irish. On Route Irish in Baghdad, in Kabul and Jalalabad within weeks, that is where they marched and will continue to march. When they visit Afghanistan, they will be on some high mountains and in some very rainy and windy places, and I know we will think of them and apply to them this Irish blessing: ``May you always have walls for the wind, a roof for the rain, tea beside the fire, laughter to cheer you on, those you love near you, and all your heart may desire.'' Mr. Speaker, may they come home soon to a country safer and sounder because of their courage. I want to again thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership. I also want to thank Major John Mark Pierre, an Army Fellow assigned to my office. He understood how important this bill was to me and his assistance was invaluable. I want to also thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for allowing this resolution to come to this floor.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the anniversary of the Old First Presbyterian church in Huntington Village, NY. This year the church celebrates its 350th anniversary. Old First Presbyterian has not only survived wars, economic downfalls, racial and religious tensions, but has become a beacon of hope and light for its parishioners. It is a symbol of perseverance to the entire community. After being overtaken and dismantled by the British during the Revolutionary War, the constituents of Huntington Village joined together to rebuild the church as it stands today. The large bell encased in the front hall of this building was at one time taken captive by the British. Now it is proudly displayed in a glass case with the slogan ``A Town Endures'' engraved upon it. As society has evolved, so has the Old First Presbyterian Church. It now offers a vast range of services for children and adults. Many parishioners have been members since birth and have taken advantage of all that this church offers to this community. Old First Presbyterian remains the largest Presbyterian church on Long Island with a following of 680 members. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to express my admiration of a community that has worked so diligently ensuring that a true piece of history remains functioning to this day. Old First Presbyterian serves as a reminder of our Nation's rich history and a source of inspiration to its members.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote to reinvest taxpayer subsidies from the most profitable oil companies in the world to the American people in the form of lower gas prices, lower home heating oil costs, and new jobs in clean, renewable technologies. For 6 years under Republican management, we attempted a strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to lower gas prices. The strategy was to provide $14 billion in industry subsidies to the largest oil companies in the world, the most profitable oil companies in the world. So $14 billion to them, and at the same time the Bush administration submitted budgets to this Congress that actually reduced funding for renewable energies, for energy efficiency, for weatherization, for solar, for hydrogen, for other renewable technologies. And so what was the result? The result was this: Gas prices doubled; home heating oil prices tripled; oil company profits quadrupled, but the average American was now faced with an additional $1,500 in gas prices. And at the same time as oil company profits went up and as pocketbooks got lower and lower, the wallets of the American people lost more and more value, we actually increased our dependence on foreign oil. This year we are actually importing 1.6 million barrels of oil a day more than we were before the energy policy that the prior Congress passed and that the President signed. So we're actually more dependent on foreign oil, and the American people are less well off. Oil companies did very, very well. But we did nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the American people lost $1,500 in the process. Well, we're going to change that. We have the opportunity to change that this week. We're going to pass, I hope on a bipartisan basis, a new approach, a new strategy, a fundamental change in energy policy. And we're going to redirect those subsidies from oil companies to the pocketbooks of the American people. We're going to create as many as 3 million jobs in renewable technologies. We're going to invest those subsidies in the creation of new green jobs in solar and hydrogen and wind and geothermal. We're going to create those new jobs and regain our manufacturing capacity and capabilities. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that here we are, the country that defeated the most monumental threat of the 20th century in Nazi Germany and Japan, and we're now behind Germany and Japan in solar technologies. Of the top 10 wind companies on Earth, only one is American. Iceland, Denmark, now making great strides in geothermal and wind. We're not. Seven out of every 10 cars in Brazil are fuel flexible. We're not. We can regain our capacities. We can regain our skills, we can regain our competitive edge in the world. We can regain our manufacturing strength in the world by leapfrogging ahead of them in renewable technologies. To do that, we've got to make investments in the American people, not the bottom line profits of oil companies. When we gave those oil companies the opportunity to make those investments in the American people, what did they do? They made those investments in the oil companies' CEOs. One cashed out with about $60 million. We believe that it's time to make those investments in the American people, in American jobs, in renewable energy. And by doing so, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have created a paradigm, Mr. Speaker, where, with a $9 trillion debt, we are borrowing money from China to fund our defense budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our military to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. It makes no sense. This week, we have the opportunity to take a giant leap for common sense: reinvest in the American people, reinvest in American jobs, reinvest in our defense, reinvest in our competitive edge, reinvest in our human capital, reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And that's precisely what we will do by passing this bill.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam, Speaker. I rise today to congratulate the brave men and women from the Deer Park, Lindenhurst, North Babylon, West Babylon and Wyandanch Fire Departments. There is no question as to why the firefighters belonging to the FDNY are considered New York's bravest. The exemplary behavior and actions of these fine individuals represent just that, bravery. When a fire broke out at Our Lady of Miraculous Medal Church in Wyandanch fire fighters' from not only this town, but surrounding towns, joined together. They used their resources and managed to put out a fire that was large enough to severely damage the church rectory, food pantry and community outreach center. They managed to achieve this with no fatalities or injuries. Our Lady of Miraculous Medal Church has provided outreach services for over 30 years. While it saddens me that an individual would intentionally start a fire at a place that has provided such charity, I feel a sense of ease at knowing that the brave fire fighters worked so quickly to counter these acts. In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to commend the emergency responders for their bravery and a job well done. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to these men and women for their services not only on December 30th but on every day that they go out and risk their lives for others.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, in the closing days of this session, we are going to debate our key priorities, whether we should invest more in researching illness and disease or whether we should cut funding. I hope we will learn the lessons about the right priorities from a group of high school students in my congressional district at Northport High School. Two of their teachers, Mr. Pendergast and Mr. Deutsch, were afflicted by ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS strips people of their ability to speak, to swallow, to walk, and in many cases to breathe independently. Now, these students could have ignored their plight. These students could have said we have other priorities. These students could have said it's not my problem, not our problem. Here's what they did: They raised over $400,000 on their own for ALS research and advocacy. They didn't just turn away from this problem; they became part of the solution. On January 16 they are going to gather at their Midwinter Night's Dream and raise even more money. These students have become our teachers. I hope that we will learn their lessons about investing in the right priorities, about caring and showing compassion for those who need help. They have taught us a critical lesson, and I hope that we will listen carefully to the students of Northport High School.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ketewamoke Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution was organized on August 9, 1890 in Washington, DC. Seventeen years later, on December 2, 1907, in the Town of Huntington, Long Island, the Ketewamoke Chapter, NSDAR was organized with 19 charter members. The name Ketewamoke is the Native American name for the region around Huntington known as ``the place having the best beach or shore.'' The Chapter was incorporated in 1913. Today they have 88 members. The threefold purpose of the Society as a whole is the same now as it was when the Society was organized in 1890 and chartered by an Act of Congress in 1895: ``To perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved American independence; to promote, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge; to cherish, maintain and extend the institutions of American freedom, to foster true patriotism and love of country.'' The Ketewamoke Chapter continues to include these three objectives (historical, educational and patriotic) in its monthly programs. One of the first accomplishments of the Ketewamoke Chapter was to restore the Village Green and mark the spot with a bronze tablet on a boulder, in 1915. inscribed, ``Huntington Village Green.'' This ``Town Spot'' was the location of Huntington's earliest form of government where, beginning from its settlement in 1653, a small group of men continued to meet and vote over the years. Also in 1915, the Ketewamoke Chapter outfitted the original Women's Ward in Huntington Hospital with 8 beds. A bronze plaque marking this event still hangs in the old Huntington Hospital building. During World War II, when the National Society bought $210,000,000 worth of war bonds, more than $100,000 of these bonds were purchased by members of the Ketewamoke Chapter. Since then, the Chapter has placed mill stones from local mills at the ``Town Spot'' and on the grounds of the Chapter House, thus preserving local history. It has cleaned up and marked the graves of many of the local American Revolutionary soldiers. They continue to honor these patriots by placing flags on their grave sites every Memorial Day and by the Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony at Huntington's Old Burial Ground. Currently, the Chapter works to promote patriotism through community projects. They encourage local students to appreciate American history through our annual American History Essay Contest for grades 5 through 8. They encourage students to be good citizens by awarding annual Good Citizenship medals to students of 15 local schools. These students must fulfill the qualities of honor, service, leadership and patriotism. They support other local community services through our individual volunteer efforts in hospitals, literacy programs, and veteran and senior citizen projects. They give financial support to many National and State DAR projects such as the two DAR schools in the Appalachian region and the education of Native American youths through scholarships and the support of the Bacone College and the Chemawa Indian School. We present ROTC medals to qualifying cadets in local secondary schools. They are uniquely fortunate to be one of only a few Chapters in New York State which owns an historic Chapter House with a fine collection of period artifacts. It is their privilege and responsibility to preserve and to maintain this Chapter House which dates back to 1837. We take great pride in being members of the Ketewamoke Chapter, NSDAR, which is the oldest established DAR Chapter on Long Island. We take pride in honoring the memory of our patriot ancestors and in honoring all American patriots, past and present.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Amanda Marinoff and Janelle Schlossberger. These young women from Plainview-Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School in my district won the top team prize in the prestigious Siemens national math, science and technology competition. They will split a $100,000 scholarship. The contest attracts some of the Nation's most talented high school students. More than 1,600 projects were submitted this year. Marinoff and Schlossberger are enrolled in Plainview-Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School's advanced research science program. With the guidance of their teacher Mary Lou O'Donnell, they conducted research designed to find new methods of treating tuberculosis. They created a molecule that helps block the reproduction of the bacteria of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Marinoff and Schlossberger came up with the idea after Marinoff's semester working at a cancer research lab at Stony Brook University. I want to applaud the accomplishments of these young women. I offer my congratulations on their success and commend them on their dedication to the study of the medicine.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give James Klurfeld four domes as he departs as the editorial page editor of Newsday and becomes a journalism professor at Stony Brook University. As a Member of this House for 7 years, Madam Speaker, I have often found myself in frightening circumstances. I have participated in corkscrew landings in Baghdad; I have been whisked in high-security motorcades through Islamabad; I have discussed energy policy with President Bush. But nothing, Madam Speaker, is more jarring, more intimidating, more perilous than an interview with Jim Klurfeld or waking up on the morning that Newsday publishes its infamous ``Dome Ratings'' of the Long Island Congressional Delegation. Let me share with my colleagues an example of Jim Klurfeld's high standards. When I originally ran for this House in 2000, I coveted Newsday's endorsement. For days I prepared for the endorsement interview. In fact, I hadn't had as much ``fun'' since preparing for my SAT exams in eleventh grade. Finally, I sat down with Jim and his editorial board. One hour and the loss of three pounds of perspiration later, I left. As my campaign manager and I walked through the Newsday parking lot, I asked him: ``How do you think it went?'' His response: ``We should have told Mr. Klurfeld that you're running for Congress, not President.'' In fact, Madam Speaker, Jim Klurfeld's expectations were always high, his questions always probing, his depth great. He is a politician's worst nightmare: unspinnable and always a step ahead. His departure from Newsday won't exactly let the Members of the Long Island Delegation sleep better at night. We will still stay awake in fear of those notorious domes and dreading those endorsements. Nor will his departure change the basic premise of the relationship I have with him. I never mind disagreeing with Jim Klurfeld. I just hope never to disappoint him. I know many of my colleagues in Congress who have known and read Jim Klurfeld wish him well as a journalism professor. He will indeed forge a new generation of excellence in journalism, just as his father set a standard of excellence that Jim put on the pages of Newsday for so many years.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, there is bad news and good news this Veterans Day. The bad news is the study by Harvard Medical School that there are 2 million veterans who don't have health insurance and are not eligible for veterans care, 2 million veterans. What makes it worse is that President Bush is banning 273,000 veterans from receiving VA care because they are not income eligible. So he is balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class and working veterans. The good news is that this Democratic majority passed the largest increase in VA health care in the 77-year history of the VA. We are going to add 1,800 new claims processors to make the long lines a little shorter and the wait shorter as well. Now, we have to go even further. I'm urging my colleagues to sign a letter that I've sent to the President demanding that he reverse the policy of denying health care to 273,000 veterans and not means-test them. We didn't means-test when we asked them to fight our battles. We should not means-test them when they have to come home for health care.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Madam Speaker, this bill does, in fact, combine various other appropriations measures. But those measures in their totality clearly reflect the top priorities of the American people. In fact, every one of those bills separately passed with significant Republican support by significant bipartisan majorities in this House. The reason that this bill in its totality makes sense and should, with all due respect, attract the support of my friends from the other side of the aisle is because it does, in fact, fund the global war on terror. It funds our defense. It funds military construction. But it also funds America's other priorities. It funds our troops but it also takes care of our veterans, the largest increase in veterans health care in the 77-year history of the VA. It funds our defense with a robust military. But it also funds the war on cancer with increased investments in the NCI and the NIH. It funds our military so that we can achieve global stability, but it also gives working families and middle-class taxpayers a little bit of a break, actually, more than a little bit of a break, a significant break on their college expenses so that our kids can compete in a globally competitive environment. I would conclude, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that the differences between where the administration is and where we are should not be minimized. They are significant. As the chairman said, this administration is arguing over a $22 billion increased investment with one hand, and, on the other hand, telling the American people they have to come up with another $200 billion for Iraq. We are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. The difference between where the administration is and where we are on these other priorities is 2 months in Iraq. We want $880 million in increased investment for LIHEAP so that senior citizens don't have to shiver in the cold because their heating costs are too high. That is 2\1/2\ days in Iraq, that $880 million. If we want to invest $1 billion in medical research for people with cancer, with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, that's 3 days in Iraq. Our $1 billion investment covers an entire year. The administration's strategy covers 3 days in Iraq. We want $1.4 billion for the entire year for improved health care access. With this administration, the equivalent cost is 4 days in Iraq. We want $1.8 billion in increased investments to keep American streets safe with additional law enforcement and additional police. The administration says we can't afford to keep America's streets safe but is willing to spend an equivalent amount over 5 days in Iraq. Madam Speaker, this bill reflects the priorities of the American people. Separately, the components passed with overwhelming Republican support. This should be a bipartisan effort. It should be a bipartisan effort because, number one, it supports our troops, provides for robust defense, and takes care of our priorities here at home as well.

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I must say I am hearing some conflicting priorities on the floor today. We have heard that the appropriations process is not moving fast enough, despite the fact that under the leadership of Chairman Obey in the House, we passed every single one of our appropriations bills, I believe in record time. We are hearing that the appropriations process isn't moving fast enough on the one hand, and now we have a motion to instruct the conferees to actually slow it down, to take pieces out of this bill, to stop it. You can't have it both ways. We are trying to get things done. We are trying to move our priorities forward. Now, I understand that some of my friends don't want to deal with the labor, health and human services aspects of this bill, and they are concerned with the President's argument that we have plenty of money to fund Iraq but can't afford veterans health care here at home and educational priorities here at home and low-income heating for the elderly here at home. I understand those arguments, but let me suggest to my colleagues that they read a study that was just released yesterday by Harvard Medical School. That study shows there is, in fact, a critical connection between the VA pieces of this bill and the health and human services aspects of this bill. The two should be considered together. That study found that, today, there are 2 million veterans who have no health insurance. And they aren't eligible for VA benefits. Not eligible for VA benefits and too poor to afford health insurance. The number of uninsured veterans jumped to 1.8 million in 2004, and the population of uninsured veterans is increasing at twice the rate of the general population. Now, the Labor-H aspects of this bill provides $1.4 billion above the President's request for programs to improve health care access. So taken in its totality, this bill, without segregating the human services components, taken in its totality, this bill protects our troops in the field and also provides access to veterans at home who may not qualify for veterans benefits. As has been stated before, our veterans are a whole. They come back from the war, the last thing they should worry about is not having health insurance. It's the labor, health and human services aspects of this bill that could provide additional access to health care, and that is why this bill ought to be considered as it is. I would make one other point. We have already considered these bills separately. Each of these components were, in fact, debated, deliberated and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee and then debated again, deliberated again and passed with significant Republican support on the floor of the House. There is no reason to move backwards. There is no reason to delay. There is no reason to stop this process. We want to get these bills to the President. We should do so.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest financial assaults on America's middle class is the alternative minimum tax. Originally, it was meant to ensure that several dozen of the richest families in America paid their fair share of taxes, but it wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's robbing middle class taxpayers, like our union members, our cops, firefighters, teachers and nurses. Now, after too long, finally a real effort at reform is developing. The Ways and Means Committee majority has unveiled a repeal of the AMT. Now, it's too early for me to say that I agree with every single element of this proposal. I am convening a panel of experts to assess it. But I am pleased that finally we are seriously addressing this middle-class rip-off. I want to thank Chairman Rangel. I hope to work closely with him in achieving real reform and real relief for America's working families and middle-class taxpayers.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Bishop from Long Island, for asking several of us to pay tribute to Lieutenant Michael Murphy, who received the Medal of Honor. Madam Speaker, I did not know Michael Murphy personally, but I knew of him. I have a love of history, and particularly military history. And I know that every generation of Americans has confronted challenge and threat, grave and great, with the heroism of Michael Murphy. Every generation has produced its Michael Murphys. In August of 1776, in the Battle of New York, there were men like Michael Murphy. They were surrounded by the most powerful navy in the world, the British Navy, And American democracy could have been snuffed out at that point. But men like Michael Murphy took risk, sacrificed their lives, fought on, and replaced British monarchy with American democracy. They fell, Madam Speaker, so that I could stand here in this body, the Congress of the United States, the people's House of the oldest democracy on Earth. There were Mike Murphys in Gettysburg, in the Fighting 69th and other brigades, at Shiloh and Fredericksburg. There were plenty of Union generals who told President Lincoln that they didn't really need to fight the Civil War; you could have slavery on one side of the line and we could have freedom on the other and that would be fine. But there were men like Michael Murphy who understood that slavery in the United States was not an option. They fought on; they refused to retreat. They would not surrender. They would not lose their ground. They fell so that my children could grow up in a country of liberty versus tyranny. Madam Speaker, there were Mike Murphys who grew up on Long Island. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Madam Speaker, stood where you are now and summoned America into the greatest battle of the 20th century, against Nazism and fascism, there were Mike Murphys from Long Island who stood up, who stormed beaches, who leapt hills, who ran through Europe, freed France, liberated concentration camps, went to the Pacific, freed the Pacific and came back, looked at the Moon and said, we could go there, too. Many of those heroes, Madam Speaker, are from Long Island, and we value and thank every one. Only 18 Long Islanders, Madam Speaker, have received the Medal of Honor, Mike Murphy and 17 others. Madam Speaker, Mike Murphy fell in a long and noble tradition of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. He is linked in time with those I mentioned: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Vietnam, in Korea, in Normandy, and stretching back to the earliest battles and the first battlefield. Let me close, Madam Speaker, with a passage that could have been written about Michael Murphy, although it was uttered almost 2,500 years ago. This is what Pericles said at the funeral of fallen soldiers: ``In the fighting, they thought it more honorable to stand their ground and suffer death than to give in and save their lives. So they fled from the reproaches of men, abiding with life and limb the brunt of battle, and in a small moment of time, the climax of their lives, a culmination of glory, not of fear, they were swept away from us.'' So and such they were, these men, worthy of their city. Madam Speaker, Michael Murphy went to Afghanistan to defend the City of New York, which was attacked out of Afghanistan on 9/11. He joins a proud and noble tradition of history's best. My thoughts, my prayers and my condolences go to him and his family. And he will always be remembered in this Congress as the citadel of freedom in the world, for fighting for that freedom.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, last week, despite the best efforts of the Democratic majority and about 44 Republicans, we were unable to override the President's veto of health insurance for the children of poor and working families. Now, I listened to the argument that we can't afford providing health care for our children, despite the fact that our SCHIP program was entirely paid for. Look, Madam Speaker, I believe that a strong Nation can do both. You can be fiscally responsible and you can take care of your children. Good families manage to be fiscally responsible and take care of their children. It is just a matter of priorities. I will say, Madam Speaker, that I was struck by some of the mispriorities that I heard about. The same people who said that we can't afford health insurance for our children increased spending 7 percent a year since 2001 and voted to increase our debt limit 4 out of the past 5 years. The difference is that they spent on the wrong things. No spending? We can't afford health care for children but billions of dollars in tax cuts for the most profitable oil companies on Earth? We can't afford spending for health insurance for our children but billions of dollars in spending in no-bid contracts for Halliburton? We have increased the debt. We are putting it on our kids' shoulders, and now we are telling our kids we can't afford to help them with the x-rays.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the students of Half Hollow Hills High School East for their thoughtful letters on the war in Iraq. I appreciated hearing their views and reading their individual letters which contained their ideas and perspectives on our involvement in Iraq. I want to applaud their interest in this critical topic and appreciate that they took the time to share their opinions with me.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed firmly in the qualities of civility in this House, and bipartisanship and constructive dialogue and engagement and respect for one another's disagreements. In fact, last night I spent an hour on this floor with Members on both sides of the aisle talking constructively in a bipartisan Center Aisle Caucus Special Order on Iraq. And we managed to put our political differences aside and talk not about left or right, but moving forward. And so civility is critically important to me and has been since coming here nearly 8 years ago. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I heard of the comments of Rush Limbaugh, when I heard him impugn the integrity of our soldiers, when I heard him call them phonies, I had just about had it. How dare he attack our soldiers. How dare he impugn their integrity. How dare he attack their credibility. There is no place in America for anyone to attack our soldiers while they are fighting in combat or when they have come home. I don't care what the reason, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in America for that, particularly coming from someone who believes that he is the ``gold standard'' of patriotism, who believes he has a monopoly on patriotism, who has accused anyone who dissents with a particular policy with which he disagrees as a traitor. What is patriotic, Mr. Speaker, about calling American soldiers phonies? What is patriotic about that? If ever there was anything that suggested to me a dissent beyond the line, I would never call it traitorous, but I can't think of a better example of giving aid and comfort to our enemies than somebody who would call our soldiers phony while they're fighting, who would attack them while they're defending us. He crossed the line, he crossed the line of fair play, he crossed the line of hypocrisy. This standard-barer of patriotism attacking American forces, it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Not only because it is hypocritical and not only because it is an attack on our Armed Forces, Mr. Speaker, but because it comes from somebody who never fought for our country, unless you consider being a disk jockey to be worthy of combat pay. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of this kind of hypocrisy and this kind of attack. I went to Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday, and maybe that's why I'm so fired up, Mr. Speaker. I visited Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday and with young men whose limbs have been amputated, whose futures have been changed. How dare anybody suggest that because one of them may disagree with a policy that that person is a phony. Thank God we live in a country that gives us the right to agree with a policy to go to war. You have the right to disagree, you even have the right to remain silent, but no one has the right in this country to call any member of our Armed Forces ``phony,'' and Rush Limbaugh owes them an apology.

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 thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I can assure him that he will have ample time this evening to elaborate on his views. We have been joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who I know is going to speak on some of his priorities and his efforts to bridge the gap between both parties. I would like to yield to one of the most distinguished Members of this House, as I said before, a veteran, someone who I've come to know only recently. I've served in this House for nearly 8 years, and the gentleman from Maryland and I got to know each other only recently with respect to trying to reduce the polarization of this debate. We've had dinner. We met in my office some 2 weeks ago, and I want to commend him for his leadership and his bipartisanship and his desire also to find a way forward rather than right or left, and with that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland and I want to underscore the point that he's making. The center aisle is right here, right here in front of me. Those on my side of the center aisle can scream at those on the other side and those on the other side can scream at my side. That's not going to end the war. Again, this is a place, this is a House where we encourage debate and even dissent and disagreement, but the screaming and the vitriol and the partisan attacks will not bring this war to an end. Those of us who are here this evening would prefer to spend our time engaging with one another, disagreeing respectfully on some issues but trying to find that common ground, trying to build that consensus that will bring the war to an end. One of our colleagues who's here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), has been working very, very hard on a proposal to integrate the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into current policy. That was a perfect example of an advanced and high plane of bipartisan dialogue. Members from both parties, experts from around the country, convened in that Iraq Study Group, made recommendations to the administration and to Congress. Many of those recommendations received widespread praise and support but have not been implemented, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been working to attempt to take those recommendations and move them forward, take them off the shelf and move them forward in our policy. I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on one point that the gentleman made, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the gentleman talked about the importance of having a dialogue here on the floor of the House, and I agree. I don't know how we can expect Sunni and Shia and Kurd to reconcile their differences when we seem to be incapable of reconciling our differences. I think we should lead by example. But in addition to engaging one another on the floor of the House, I believe that leadership also involves bringing communities together. And one of the unique things that the Center Aisle Caucus will be doing under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) is to have town hall meetings in each others' districts on Iraq so that we can listen together to the broad range of opinions that are in our districts and bring that back in a bipartisan fashion. And I'm very pleased, Madam Speaker, to have learned that our first bipartisan town hall meeting will be in the district of the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Cramer from Alabama, Mrs. Emerson from Missouri and I will be traveling to the gentleman's district in Maryland to have a bipartisan town hall that he is convening, and I'm very much looking forward to engaging in that dialogue, and hoping that the gentleman will be educated by what my constituents believe, and that I will be educated by what his constituents believe. With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, tonight we do something different, something out of the ordinary. The American people are accustomed to tuning into C-SPAN and watching Democrats yelling at Republicans and Republicans yelling at Democrats. There is a Democratic Special Order and there is a Republican Special Order. C-SPAN has become a channel that requires a parental advisory before kids are able to watch. It has become unsafe because of all the screaming and yelling. Tonight we do something different. Tonight we have a bipartisan Special Order. Tonight Democrats and Republicans will spend some time not focusing on our disagreements, not fighting with one another, not talking about the left and the right, although this is a place where there should be discussion about left and right, but focusing on moving forward, focusing on specific solutions and ideas with respect to Iraq that will move us forward. The plain fact is that Democrats and Republicans are are going to disagree on some fundamental issues. Maybe we are going to disagree on 60 or 70 percent of the issues, but we do agree on the 30 to 40 percent that is left. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be paralyzed on our agreements because we are so busy disagreeing with one another. Well, 2 years ago we found the Center Aisle Caucus, a bipartisan group of 50 Democrats and Republicans who meet routinely not to talk about our disagreements, we know where we are going to disagree, but to see if we can carve out areas of agreement. To talk not about the left or the right, but to talk about the way forward. We have convened a series of meetings specifically pertaining to Iraq. Tonight I am joined by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a Marine veteran who has been involved in those meetings and talked about bipartisanship and finding common ground and important solutions. I am joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who has become very active, a leader in the Center Aisle Caucus, who also understands the importance of engaging one another and talking about moving forward rather than left and right. We will be joined by other colleagues. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who has been proposing with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that we integrate the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into policy as we move forward. I will be talking about two bipartisan solutions that I have been submitting. One, directing that the President submit a status of forces agreement to the Government of Iraq as a signal that we are not in Iraq to stay, to occupy, but that Iraq is a sovereign government responsible for its security. I believe that status of forces agreement, which we have in almost every country where we have a military presence, would be a very important signal to the Iraqi people and to our own forces. Secondly, I will be talking about bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to expedite the process of bringing a variety of Iraqi refugees to the United States, those refugees who have served coalition forces as interpreters, as translators, who have risked their lives and now have to go through a bureaucratic nightmare to leave Iraq and come here. We will talk about that as well. The final point I want to make before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) is this: yesterday I visited the Walter Reed Army Hospital. I visited with about seven soldiers who have sustained some very serious wounds in Iraq. I visited with one of my constituents who had his foot amputated. I visited with another Long Islander who found it very difficult to talk, very difficult to breathe. I visited with a soldier who was being discharged yesterday afternoon and will now begin outpatient treatment. Ultimately, I believe and the Members who will join me this evening believe that our obligation is to them. It is not to the left or to the right. It is to them. They do not want the United States Congress to be engaged in partisan paralysis and bickering. That will not end the war. They want us to try and find common ground. I am under no illusions that whatever we discuss tonight, and the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Texas and the other Members and myself, will end the war tomorrow. I wish we could end the war tomorrow. The fact of the matter is that for as long as we are here together on the floor of the House, we have an obligation to try and work with one another on areas where we can agree. We can fight honorably, we can disagree respectfully on all matters of policy; but we have an obligation to move forward on areas where there is agreement. That is what the Center Aisle Caucus was formed to do. One of our members from Texas served for many years in this distinguished Chamber and has returned to the Congress after a 2-year hiatus. He is somebody who personifies bipartisanship, who has been a leader in this body, whose constituents also expect him to be working hard to move forward rather than left or right, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. Let me focus on just one very specific bipartisan solution that the Center Aisle Caucus has proposed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania alluded to it. It's a status of forces agreement. At the end of the cold war, the United States had permanent status of forces agreements with about 40 countries. Today the number has grown to more than 90, which means that the United States Government has status of forces agreements with nearly half of the countries comprising the world community. Now, what is a status of forces agreement? A status of forces agreement is essentially a negotiated document between the United States Government and a host government where we have a military presence that governs the relationship between the military and that government. It governs our criminal justice issues. It governs a variety of diplomatic and protocol issues. Now, I have been told on my visits to Iraq and in my conversations with Iraqi officials here at home and with American officials that one of the concerns that the population of Iraq has is that we are going to be there forever, that we want to occupy Iraq forever. We don't want to occupy Iraq forever. We don't want to be there one day longer than we need to be. If I had my way, we would be out tomorrow. The fact of the matter is that if the Iraqi people believe that we are there running the place and that they are not a sovereign government, they will never have the capability to stand up their own ministries, to take care of their own security. I have proposed on a bipartisan basis a resolution that asks the President to begin negotiating a status of forces agreement with the sovereign Iraqi Government. You can't expect a government to have a capability if we can't even negotiate an agreement between that government and our government with respect to the presence of military forces. Iraq is a sovereign entity. One of the very important signals that we can send to the Iraqi people and to our population at home is the negotiation of the status of forces agreement. Now, one of the great levels of frustration that I have is that whenever I raise this issue, I am told that we are pushing up against an open door. I am told that mostly everybody agrees that we should have a status of forces agreement in Iraq. In fact, the Jones Commission, which was constituted as a group of highly expert military people assessing the condition of Iraqi security, when they made their recommendations, the number two recommendation in the Jones Commission report was, in fact, the submission of, and I will read directly from the report: ``The second recommendation the Commission wishes to offer is that consideration be given to pursuing an agreement akin to a status of forces agreement with the Government of Iraq. Appropriately drawn, it would have the effect of codifying our relationship with the host nation, reinforcing its sovereignty and independence, and would be consistent with other such agreements we enjoy with many nations where we have a military presence.'' So here you have yet another bipartisan commission recommending yet another idea that everybody can agree on, the Iraqis can agree to it, we can agree to it, Republicans and Democrats can agree to it, except that nobody is making it happen. So I have proposed, as I said before, a resolution, a bipartisan resolution, that simply tells the President to submit a status of forces agreement to negotiation with the Iraqi Government. It begins this process. It signals the Iraqi people that we have no intention of owning Iraq. We are guests there, and they are the host government. This is just one simple move in the right direction, a bipartisan move in the right direction; and I am hoping that the administration will listen to it and vigorously negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq. I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania, who has been active with me on that resolution, for his assistance, and would yield to him if he wants to comment further on it.