Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I will yield to my friend.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. The gentleman is correct. That is, in fact, exactly what we are trying to get at, and that is embodied in this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman. This is an example of where Republicans and Democrats can agree. We argue about a lot on this floor, but let there be no mistake. When there is genocide, when there are massacres, Republicans and Democrats will stand together in opposition to that genocide. Talking about it is not enough. We need to prepare for all contingencies, and that's what this resolution does.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will wrap up. We have heard this evening that this resolution enjoys bipartisan support and support with Members with different ideologies. The cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and I have different ideologies. I tend to lean to the right on national security issues, she tends to lean to the left. But we are united in sending a message around the world that we will not allow genocide to occur. After the Holocaust, the world embraced the slogan, ``Never Again.'' What this resolution does is say that we will explore every option to keep our promise to that slogan so that it is not just words. I also want to point out that the resolution, in addition to having the support of the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Republicans and Democrats, also was supported by Citizens for Global Slogans, Enough, the Project to Abolish Genocide and Mass Atrocities, the Genocide Intervention Network, the Save Darfur Coalition and the Truman National Security Project. This is something that we can all agree on. I am grateful to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. ISRAEL. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's exuberance. I certainly will work with him and with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to work on a truly bipartisan effort that genocide will not be tolerated, and we will explore every option and push every button we need to. I thank the gentleman. We will work with him. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have drafted this amendment with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Government of Sudan that we will proactively explore every option and bear the burdens necessary to help stop the genocide in Darfur. 400,000 innocent people have been murdered in Darfur, 2 million refugees, and through it all, the Government of Sudan tests the will and the patience of the United States, the United Nations and the entire world. This amendment says that we have the will and we are running out of patience. One hundred miles from Darfur in Chad is the Abeche Air Base. If diplomacy fails, if Sudan continues to defy the world and perpetuate this genocide, that air base can be used for potential NATO operations. It can be used for a possible U.N. peacekeeping force. It can be used for humanitarian missions. Our amendment expresses the will of Congress to make the upgrades necessary to that air base and requires the Department of Defense to report within 90 days on specifically what upgrades may be necessary and what the costs will be. It says to Sudan, we will not turn our backs, we will not close our eyes, we will prepare. I urge passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. I very much thank the gentleman, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I fully respect the views of the gentleman from California, but I do get troubled when I hear anybody on this floor questioning the commitment of any other Member of this floor to our troops. I did not suggest for a moment that the other side was not supportive of our troops when they underfunded our troops, when they didn't provide enough up-armor for their Humvees, when they didn't provide enough armor for their vests, when they allowed Water Reed Hospital to deteriorate. When these things happened, I never questioned the commitment of the other side to our troops. And I think we would all appreciate it if we confine our differences to honest policy debate and not suggest that any Member of this body does not support the brave men and women who are fighting for our country. I support this resolution because it is another attempt at good- faith, honest compromise with the President of the United States. Two weeks ago we offered a compromise to the President. We said we will give you everything that you have asked for, for operations in Iraq, and we will give you more for operations in Afghanistan, where the war on terror began. We will give you more money for Walter Reed, for post- traumatic stress disorder, for traumatic brain injuries. And the President said, no thanks. I want a blank check and I want to be able to spend a blank check eternally. And now we are back offering a new compromise which says we will fund operations in Iraq. We will strengthen our capabilities in Afghanistan. But we want accountability for the first time, Mr. President. And all we are saying is this: report to the United States Congress, certify our progress, and in 2 months we will have a choice. Some people can say the status quo is working fine, progress has been made, the management of the administration is going well, and vote to continue operations in Iraq. And others will have the opportunity to draw a different conclusion and suggest a strategic redeployment. That is a commonsense compromise. And, frankly, if the President of the United States vetoes this compromise, he is saying to the American people I don't want accountability. I don't want oversight. I want it my way. I want it myself. I just want to thank the gentleman for including language that was originated by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that codified the President's own language that for every Iraqi soldier that reaches combat proficiency, an American is redeployed. The President has been saying that for 4 years. If 378,000 Iraqis have reached combat proficiency, why did we need a surge of 20,000? Why do we need another 13,000 that the President called for? All we are doing is codifying the President's own language: for every Iraqi soldier that is trained, an American is redeployed. I thank the chairman for including that language. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for originating it.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Alec Ornstein, who will be recognized tomorrow on Long Island by the Long Island Builders Institute. Mr. Ornstein is a leader on Long Island. As the co-founder of Ornstein Leyton Company, he has been involved in the real estate development community for over 15 years. He is dedicated to offering a wide range of housing alternatives to hundreds of satisfied home owners on Long Island and neighboring counties. Mr. Ornstein is committed to responsible economic development of Long Island and has worked towards this goal as the President of the Long Island Builders Institute. As the President of the LIBI, Mr. Ornstein has supported the philosophy of protecting Long Island's valuable resources and making our community accessible to everyone. He has also taken on a new role as a member of the Board of Directors for the Long Island Housing Partnership. Mr. Ornstein has also taken on significant charitable and philanthropic causes. He and his family established the Ornstein Scholarship Fund at his alma mater, Syracuse University. For the past nineteen years, he has bestowed the American Jewish Committee's Franklin H. Ornstein Humanitarian of the Year Award to those that have battled racism and inequality in our communities. Mr. Ornstein has held executive positions and served on many philanthropic boards in the past, including Long Beach Memorial Hospital, the Science Museum of Long Island, Temple Emanuel of Great Neck and Temple Beth-El of Huntington. I am proud to honor Mr. Alec Ornstein for his service to the Long Island Builders Institute, and his dedication to the betterment of our community.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk with my colleagues about a visit I recently made to Deer Park High School in my Congressional District, where the students invited me to participate in a hearing on college affordability. The Seniors at Deer Park High School and I discussed the skyrocketing costs associated with getting a college education and the ways in which many middle class families on Long Island are put at a critical disadvantage--being too rich to qualify for student aid but too poor to pay for college. They shared their personal thoughts and concerns about how they'll pay for college. And they advised me on legislation I'm drafting to make college more affordable. Higher education is so important--but so many parents and students simply cannot afford to pay for college. And many parents and students who find a way to struggle through end up thousands of dollars in debt. Total expenses for public universities (including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation and other expenses) now average $12,796 per year. Total expenses for private universities now average $30,367 per year. And New York has the highest number of subsidized student borrowers in the country. How can the United States compete in the global economy if our young people cannot afford a college education? We've made a start. In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans for undergraduates in half over the next five years--from the current 6.8% to 3.4%. In closing, I'd like to commend the students at Deer Park High School for all of the hard work and preparation they put into our college affordability hearing and I want to thank them for all of their wonderful suggestions. The time I spent at Deer Park High School truly helped reinforce my commitment to making college more affordable for Long Island families.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Harry Haft, a Holocaust survivor and inductee into the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. Born Hertzka Haft on July 28, 1925 in Poland, Harry Haft was only 16 when he was sent to the infamous concentration camp, Auschwitz. Here, the brave teenager was forced to fight other prisoners for the amusement of German SS guards. These perverse, bare-knuckled bouts were held while Mr. Haft routinely faced starvation, torture, and a culture of death. However, Mr. Haft's determination and instincts kept him alive long enough to escape from the camp. After World War II ended, Mr. Haft married Miriam and traveled to America determined to find freedom, Here, he became a professional boxer, one who would battle elements of corruption and organized crime as he worked to establish himself as a professional athlete. His winning career would culminate in a bout against the future undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, Rocky Marciano. After his retirement from the ring, Mr. Haft had three children, Alan, Marty, and Helene, and today is a proud grandfather of six: Hartley, Jamie, Stephanie, Ethan, Melodie, and Jonathan, This Sunday, April 29, 2007, Mr. Haft will take his place as a deserving member of the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in Commack, New York. His story is one of perseverance and survival--of a man who escaped from unimaginable horror to find a new life and success at the top of his profession. I am proud to honor him today.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, not to quibble over a rule, but to get to the heart of this very important legislation, in 1957 the American people were terrorized when Sputnik orbited the Earth, and it looked like the Soviet Union had beat us into outer space. What we did then, in the face of that very grave threat to our national security, was to launch a new generation of engineers and scientists. What we did then was went into our classrooms and nurtured a new generation of people who could engineer, research, develop, manufacture and mobilize. That generation of engineers landed us on the Moon. People say that NASA landed man on the Moon. I have a very high regard for NASA, but NASA didn't land us on the Moon. The Grumman Corporation landed us on the Moon. NASA provided the incentives and the support and acted as a catalyst to help mobilize that generation of engineers that figured out how to get us to the Moon. We won the Cold War with that generation. I believe that today our dependence on foreign oil is just as grave a threat as Sputnik was; just as grave a threat to our security, and my children's security, as the Cold War was. We need to engineer again, to research and develop, to mobilize and motivate and inspire a new generation of engineers who can develop plug-in hybrids and fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and cellulosic ethanol. I was in China just 2 months ago on an energy security congressional delegation. The seventh wealthiest person in China is manufacturing solar panels in China and selling them to Germany; not here, but selling them to Germany. In Brazil, seven out of every 10 cars is running on flex fuel. We beat Germany and Japan in World War II. They are now ahead of us in solar energy. If we could win the Cold War and World War II, if we could defeat Germany and Japan in World War II, we should be able to get ahead of them in solar energy. If Brazil can do it, we can do it. It starts in the classroom. It starts with our schools. It starts with that generation. We can no longer afford to turn our backs on the future. It is time to harness that energy so that generation can provide us with the energy and security we need. It is time to stop borrowing money from China in order to fund our military, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our weapons to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is a national security issue, and it's time for us to treat it as that and invest in that next generation of engineers and scientists. That is what this bill does, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Is this the perfect solution? No. But how can there be a perfect solution to a war so imperfectly devised, so catastrophically planned, so horribly managed by the Bush administration? This resolution turns in a better direction. It provides health care to our veterans. It provides support to our warfighters. It demands accountability from our President. And it creates the process to redeploy our troops. I voted for the use of force in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is an exceedingly dangerous region on the brink of an eruption that threatens global security. But the war in Iraq did not stabilize the Middle East. It has destabilized it. Before the war in Iraq, Iran was concerned about Israel. Today, Israel is concerned about Iran. Before the war in Iraq, there was no such thing as ``Al Queda in Iraq''. Today, there is. Before the war in Iraq, our military was capable of swiftly and decisively responding to multiple threats, foreign and domestic. Just yesterday, the New York National Guard reported to my office that it has only 37 percent of the mission critical transportation it needs to respond to a homeland security emergency in my state: whether it's a terrorist attack or a severe hurricane. This resolution reinvests in the priorities we need. And it says to both the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration: ``No more blank checks. No more endless commitments.'' Many are troubled with the inclusion of a strategic withdrawal of our troops between December of this year and August of next. Mr. Speaker. And I must be honest. I have struggled with this as well. The decision should be hard. It should be contentious. It should torment us all. Because no matter what we do, the stakes are high. The consequences are great. If you lean to the right, an August 2008 redeployment is way too soon. If you lean to the left, an August 2008 redeployment is way too long. I reached my own judgment a few months ago. Based not on polls, not on politics, not on the convenience of sound-bytes on either side of the aisle and not on righteous absolutism that can only be formulated in a vacuum. I formed it after listening to the Commanding General of CENTCOM testify to the Armed Services Committee that we had until the middle of this year before Baghdad spins out of control. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group, after months of non-partisan work and study, reached the judgment that: ``By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.'' The middle of this year to the middle of next year. Those are the benchmarks, Mr. Speaker. Those are the nonpartisan, nonpolitical, balanced and reasoned benchmarks. And those benchmarks are contained in this resolution. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Today Republicans and Democrats will disagree. Fair enough. But it's time to stop thinking about our disagreements and begin working together on our agreements. Last week, several members of the House Center Aisle Caucus, which I have the privilege of co-chairing, met to discuss cooperating on several Iraq initiatives. This week. I introduced the first of these bipartisan measures with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). Our resolution requires the President to submit a Status Of Forces Agreement to the Iraq government, just as we have with other governments where we have a military presence. This will send the message that we are not occupiers of Iraq. And we follow the rule of law. I mention this now, Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that my colleagues who wish to join us in constructive ways forward will join us. That the debate will turn from left and right to forward. That is what our troops want. That is what our constituents want. That is our obligation.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in great sadness. My community has lost a great leader and a humanitarian: Ken Berkman. Of all the things that can be said of Ken Berkman, the most profound is that he made a difference in his community. And to every good cause and every community project he brought a sparkling wit, a wry smile, a deep compassion, and an exuberant dedication. He built one of the leading law firms on Long Island, but understood that the foundation of a strong law firm is a good and flourishing community. I have known Ken and his wife Irene for many years, but anyone involved in any facet of community life or any issue confronting Long Island has also known them. Ken cared about his country. He cared about the town of Huntington. And cared most about his family. His legacy will be a standard of grace and commitment that to which others will aspire. He made our community better, and those who follow his example will continue to push our community forward. That, Madam Speaker, is the true legacy of Ken Berkman. We lost him, but not the standard he set, and the difference he made to the people I represent in the United States Congress.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the vast contributions that past and present African American leaders have made to our country. As February and Black History Month come to a close, it is time for us all to reflect on the crucial role that African Americans have played in this great nation. As we commemorate the achievements of African American leaders, we must remember the efforts of their predecessors who dedicated their entire lives to opening the doors for those that followed. If it were not for the commitment of civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers and countless others, today's accomplishments may not have come to fruition. Their diligence and bravery paved the way for future African Americans and for that they deserve our deep recognition and praise. Standing here today, I am honored to serve in this historic 110th Congress particularly because we have a record number of African Americans holding leadership positions. As a Democrat, I am proud to have Representative James Clyburn serving as the Majority Whip making him the highest ranking African American in Congressional history. Additionally, we are privileged to have Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi of the Homeland Security Committee, Chairman John Conyers of Michigan on the Judiciary Committee, Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs- Jones of Ohio on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and Chairman Charles Rangel from my home state of New York on the Committee on Ways and Means. I am grateful to be serving in this body with such distinguished colleagues. I hope you will all join me today on this the last day of February in recognizing and honoring the profound contributions of African Americans to the United States of America.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Huntington Jewish Center. In 1907, some of Long Island's first Jewish families arrived in the Huntington area bringing with them a rich spirit and culture. Their desire to set down roots and to belong to a community has led to the creation of one of the nation's most enduring religious establishments. These Jewish families gathered to pray, learn and socialize in the old firehouse on Main Street and the Huntington Jewish Center was born. The current building, located on Park Avenue was completed in 1961. It was designed to meet the diverse needs of the membership. The elegantly modern building houses two sanctuaries, a Hebrew school and nursery school, a family life center, youth wing, social hall, library, meeting rooms and an office. One hundred years later it is celebrating its centennial anniversary. The devotion and dedication of its generations of members has translated into 100 years of worship in the Huntington community. The Huntington Jewish Center is now the oldest synagogue in Suffolk County, in my district, yet it remains a vibrant spiritual, cultural and social center.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, we are all so proud on both sides of the aisle of the work that our servicemembers are doing in military theaters abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan and so many places around the world. And we should be just as proud of the work they do when they come home. I rise today to share with my colleagues the extraordinary heroism of Brian James Ivory. Mr. Ivory was a very proud member of the United States Marine Corps. He served in Iraq. He crewed aircraft flying in and out of some very dangerous places. He was also stationed in North Carolina where he assisted in search and rescue missions, and he came home to Long Island when his deployment ended. On December 17, he was driving home from work at night and he saw a vehicle in front of him hit a utility pole and erupt into flames. This young man, who had already served and sacrificed for his country, who had already paid his dues, rather than driving on and just calling the police, stopped his car, called the authorities and then pulled the driver out of the car, risking his life one more time, not in Iraq, but on the Long Island Expressway. I want to commend this gentleman for his heroism. This is a story that I know is not unique. The point here is that we not simply celebrate the sacrifices and the heroism of our servicemembers when they go abroad to fight our battles, but we also keep in mind their bravery, their courage, their commitment, their dedication, their loyalty to protecting human life when they return home.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak either, but after listening to some of my friends from the other side of the aisle discuss how the House has finished and we have concluded business, they may be going home for the day, but I want to share with America and my constituents what I am going to be doing. I am not leaving. I am going to continue to work. At 2:30, I will be meeting with a constituent group from my district. I am going to return to a hearing of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I will be meeting with another group from my district at 3. I am meeting with the adjuvant general of the New York National Guard at 3:30. At 4, I am meeting with a member from the other side, Congresswoman Emerson, to discuss the Center Aisle Caucus. Then I have a 4:30 staff meeting, then a Humane Society meeting, then a U.S.-China Working Group meeting. Then I will be going to George Washington University to give a speech. My friends, it is okay for you to go home at 2:00 when the legislative business is done, but many of us on this side, we are going to continue to do the work that the American people want.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by setting the record straight. I have heard my friends on the other side talk about this resolution as calling for withdrawal, as calling for retreat. There is nothing in this resolution that says withdraw; there is nothing in this resolution that says retreat; there is nothing in this resolution that says exit. What this resolution says is that we support our troops, and we do not believe that it is a good idea to add 20,000 more troops to a policy that has not worked. In October of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is a dangerous place and that you have to use a combination of hard power and soft power to help change the trajectory of the Middle East from a place that teaches kids how to blow things up to a place that teaches kids how to put things together. In January of 2005, I visited our troops in Iraq, and I remember sitting with General Casey and asking him, How many foreign fighters are here and how many insurgents? And at that point, January 2005, the General said, Congressman, there are about 500 foreign fighters and there are about 5,000 insurgents. And so what to do? We committed more force to try and solve that problem. And then I went back to Iraq in April of 2006, 15 months later, and I asked General Casey, How many foreign fighters are there and how many insurgents? And General Casey said, Congressman, there are 5,000 foreign fighters, there used to be 500, now 5,000; there used to be 5,000 insurgents, now there are 20,000 insurgents. And so what did we do? We threw in more force. And now a year after that we stand here debating a resolution on whether we should commit another 20,000 troops to a mission that is poorly planned, from a military that has been strained by that poor planning and that is ill conceived. Now, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the United States asked me to support additional troops into Afghanistan tonight to find Osama bin Laden, who by the way was the one who killed over 100 of my constituents, or to stop the resurgence of the Taliban, which by the way was the group of people who really gave aid and comfort to the enemy, I would vote for that tonight. I absolutely would vote for that tonight. But this decision by the President to put 20,000 more people into Iraq is the wrong number at the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have heard my colleagues talk about the messages that we are sending our troops and how it will affect their morale, and I have an obligation as somebody who supports our military to suggest that if we had given our troops up-armor for their Humvees, Kevlar for their vests, night-vision goggles that work, and consistent rotations, their morale would be much better. Our troops are not afraid of democracy being waged on the floor of the House of Representatives. And, in fact, on the chance that our enemies are listening to this debate, let me suggest that this debate doesn't give aid and comfort to our enemies. It tells our enemies what democracy is about. So for our enemies who may be listening: welcome to democracy. This is what it sounds like, this is what it looks like, and this is what we are willing to fight for. What our servicemembers deserve to hear is the truth. What they deserve is a government that confronts reality rather than simply hoping for the best. So here is the truth, Mr. Speaker: somewhere between those who believe that we can stay the course in Iraq indefinitely and those who believe that we should leave Iraq tomorrow is the painful truth. The truth is that neither of those options will work. Now, if you agree with me that that is the painful reality, then you are left with a hard choice: add 20,000 troops to continue the administration's ineffective plan, or try something different. 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, or rebuild our readiness here at home to deal with the growing challenges of Iran or naval expansion in China or genocide in Darfur or the other dangers in the world. Hold the Iraqi Government accountable for accelerating the training of their troops, or continue hoping for the best while putting the burden on the backs of 20,000 more U.S. troops. Let me make two other points. The gentleman who preceded me, my friend from California, said, what do you have to offer? We have offered ideas; we have offered ideas from day one. The problem has been the stubborn resistance by the administration to listen to our ideas. I have been advocating with my friend from California (Mrs. Tauscher) a status of forces agreement in Iraq, so that we would send the message that we are not occupiers, that we don't want to be there for one day longer than we need to be. The administration has rejected that. I have been advocating with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) a one-for-one resolution. I and others have been advocating a formula, a one-for-one formula that says that for every Iraqi security force that stands up an American will be redeployed. So we have provided ideas. And I want to once again offer a bipartisan invitation to my colleagues to work with us, because whether this resolution passes or not, the war is not going to end the next day. We still have many challenges ahead, and we are going to have to work together. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point about some of the characterizations that we have been listening to. As a Democrat, I know that there is not a single Republican who wakes up in the morning wanting this war to last for one day longer than it has to last. And in the same spirit, I am offended by anyone who would suggest that there is a Democrat who gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who wants us to be defeated, who wants us to lose. That is not what we are about. We need to end the sound bites and the partisanship and the war rooms off the floor of the House that tell people what to say, and begin formulating effective policy for the troops that are listening to us tonight. I visited my VA hospital yesterday, and I saw men and women in wheelchairs and gurneys. It didn't say Republican or Democrat on those wheelchairs and gurneys. When the time came, they went to fight for us. Our obligation is to stand by them, not with sound bites, not with policies that haven't worked before, but with new ideas for a stronger country.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my good friend for his leadership in the Blue Dogs, his leadership in the Congress, and my good friend from Georgia who, as he noted, cochairs with me the Democratic Study Group on National Security, which is intended to ensure that this Congress and Democrats in Congress continue to lead the fight on behalf of our troops, to lead the fight on behalf of our national security. We were founded in the acknowledgement that we need a robust, muscular military to protect us from the threats that are out there. I think this topic is critically important, the topic of war profiteering. And who pays the price for war profiteering? Our taxpayers pay the price, our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world pay the price. But there is another group that is paying the price, and I would like to address that this evening, our National Guard units at home. This morning there was a report in the National Journal's Congress Daily. It was headlined, National Guard May Lack Needed Gear to Deal With Domestic Crisis, GAO Says. And the report raises questions about whether the State-run National Guard units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil. It says it will remain unclear whether the Guard is equipped to respond effectively to the consequences of a large-scale terrorist attack or natural disaster. The article in the National Journal states, ``Over the last several months, many State Guard leaders have complained that their unit took their best equipment with them when they deployed to Iraq, leaving the personnel at home short of trucks, radios and other equipment needed for domestic missions. Indeed, Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau, told Congress last year that at least two-thirds of his units in the United States are not combat ready.'' Now this, to me, is just incredible that Halliburton made money, that these contractors made money. In my view, they gouged the military, gouged our taxpayers, marked up the services they provided, and National Guard units at home are short of the equipment they need. I represent a district on Long Island. The World Trade Center was 40 miles from my hometown. We know what terrorism is like. We needed our emergency responders when that happened. We are likely to need them again, the gentleman from Georgia knows that very well. But when two- thirds of their equipment is sitting in Iraq, that creates a very serious problem. That is the cost of war profiteering. Now, I understand the exigencies of war and I understand that when you go to war, you know, you have to make sure that your troops have everything they need, and there are all sorts of funding issues; but my goodness, Secretary Rumsfeld said, You go to war not with the Army you want but with the Army you have. You have got to budget for that Army. You never send people into war unequipped, underfunded, underequipped without the right number of coagulant bandages, without the right number of night vision goggles and up-armored Humvees. If they found the money to pay these contractors that ripped us off, they can find the money to make sure that our National Guard units have the equipment they need. If they found the money to pay the excessive bills of these contractors so that they could raise their bottom lines, they could find the money to raise the equipment that the National Guard needs for the mission-critical equipment that will be required-- not just in an act of terrorism, by the way, but when we have a major hurricane as we did with Katrina. Long Island stands a very good chance of suffering a Category 3 hurricane or more. And it is going to be very difficult for me to explain to my constituents that they didn't have the National Guard equipment resources that they were depending on to respond to a Category 3 hurricane because that equipment was in Iraq; but Halliburton got what it wanted, its CEO got the salary increase he needed. This isn't very complicated. We are short-funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; we are undersupplying our National Guard units at home. The big corporations who are contracted as part of this war are making more money than ever. And there are still companies in the United States that can register their international headquarters at a P.O. Box in Bermuda so they can avoid their fair share of taxes at home. That is a disgrace. It is time for accountability. It is time for oversight. It is time to put our money where our mouths are. It is time to quit talking about funding our troops here and abroad and then not giving them the resources they need. The Blue Dogs believe in fiscal accountability. We take second place to nobody when it comes to supporting our troops and supporting our military, to nobody. But we also understand that you can't say you are doing that; you have got to actually do it. You can't fight a war abroad, short-fund our troops there and be left with degraded National Guard units at home. It is time for accountability, for oversight. It is time for a different direction, and that is precisely what the Blue Dogs are going to insist on. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I would just close with one point. I want to echo what the gentleman from Georgia has said. This soldier comes first. If you go into fight a global war on terror you better make sure the fighters have everything they need. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the corporate executives at Halliburton. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the CEO of Exxon Mobil who got a huge tax cut on top of his bonus, on top of his huge salary. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the big pharmaceutical companies that also got a windfall from the government in the Medicare part D program, despite their record-breaking profits. The gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arkansas and I believe more than anything else that our primary obligation in this place, in this House, is to support our Armed Forces and to keep this Nation safe. That takes the right priorities. In the past, the priorities have been wrong. How do I know? Two- thirds of our National Guard units do not have the equipment they need to respond to an emergency or an act of terrorism at home because the equipment is sitting in Iraq because we did not fund the war fight properly. It is time to put our soldiers first, not just in our rhetoric but in our budgets; and to do that, you need accountability.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and debate how we are going to debate this rule, an F-16 is burning 25 gallons of fuel every minute. A Stryker combat vehicle on which our troops travel is traveling at the rate of about 7 miles per gallon. I was on a C-17 recently. It is burning 3,000 gallons an hour. Energy is a national security issue. It is a vital national security issue. And we can't afford to continue to debate the debate to adjourn this House. The decision before to ask this House to adjourn, I think, is emblematic of failed energy policies. There is no more debating or delaying. It is time to act. Last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic energy costs. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing, buying fuel for its planes. Now, I believe in a robust defense. We have got some significant challenges in the world. China is a significant challenge. Iran is a significant challenge. But the policies on energy that we have had for the past 6 years have put us in the position where we are borrowing money from China to fund our defense budgets, to fuel our military, which requires buying oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. How does that make sense? It makes no sense. I was in China just several weeks ago. They are going to reduce their energy consumption by 20 percent and keep growing, and increase their use of renewables, while we continue to rely on our adversaries to power our military to protect us from our adversaries. This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is as glaring a threat to our national security as Sputnik was, as the Cold War was, as the space race was. And our answer to those threats was, we will research and develop and manufacture and engineer and land men on the Moon by the end of the decade. We confronted those threats and beat those threats. It is time to quit debating and quit delaying and quit stalling. It is time to put the protection of our troops ahead of the profits of the big oil companies. It is time to understand that this is a critical national security issue that has been tried and debated and delayed for 30 years. It is time to act now.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, on September 11th, 2001, my congressional district lost well over one hundred people; and tens of thousands of lives were shattered. So it is on their behalf that I rise today and support passage of this bill, to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission. I am grateful that the first bill to be passed in the first hours of a new majority is this one. Because America can't afford to wait another minute. We've had 5\1/2\ years of excuses, delays, postponements and lobbying. That's 5\1/2\ years too long. Even today, Mr. Speaker, there are some who doubt we can meet the deadlines to screen air cargo in 3 years and shipping cargo in 5 years. Mr. Speaker, America's greatest triumphs were not achieved by saying ``it's too hard.'' They were secured by refusing to take no for an answer. In 1962, 5 years after Sputnik was launched, John F. Kennedy said, ``By the end of the decade we will land on the moon.'' In 2007, over 5 years after 9-11, we are saying, ``by the end of the decade we will screen all air cargo on our planes.'' If we could research, develop, engineer and build the systems that lifted people into space, out of orbit, propel them to the moon, land them on the moon, bring them back to their capsule, return to earth, survive a fiery re-entry and deposit them safely in the ocean--then we should be able to figure out how to screen air cargo in a way that minimizes risk and inconvenience to people who get on planes. Mr. Speaker, when it came to securing America's place in the world, President Kennedy didn't say ``I wish we could land a man on the moon but it's not easy enough, so instead we'll send a bus to Des Moines.'' Mr. Speaker, when it came to preserving our national survival, President Roosevelt didn't say, ``Yesterday was a day of infamy, so let's spend 5\1/2\ years figuring out how to respond with the least inconvenience to the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the safety and security of my constituents, there can be no more excuses, no further delay, no higher priority. And to those who disagree with me, who earnestly and honorably believe we must continue to study feasibility and practicalities, I will share other words of President Kennedy, from that same speech when he told America we would go to the moon: We choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.